Gideon MacLeish

Join Date 06/2004

What America Can Learn from Bush's Guard Duty Scandal

Press release from www.badnarik.org

The following is a press release from Libertarian Party candidate Michael Badnarik. More information on Badnarik can be obtained at www.badnarik.org, and more on the Libertarian Party can be found at www.lp.org

What America can learn from Bush's Guard duty scandal
===============================
NEWS FROM THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY
2600 Virginia Avenue, NW, Suite 100
Washington DC 20037
World Wide Web: http://www.LP.org
===============================
For release: September 15, 2004
===============================
For additional information:
George Getz, Communications Director
(202) 333-0008 ext. 222
[email protected]
================================

WASHINGTON -- Here's the lesson that Americans should learn as a result of the controversy over George Bush's service in the National Guard, Libertarians say: When governments wage futile, unnecessary wars -- such as Vietnam and Iraq -- young Americans will try to avoid them.

"The scandal isn't that so many Americans tried to avoid going to Vietnam; it's that their government tried to send them there in the first place," said Michael Dixon, Libertarian Party national chair. "The fact that Bush is sending troops to Iraq proves he hasn't learned that lesson."

While Democrats and Republicans spar over Bush's service in the Guard, the Libertarian Party says Bush's service as president is a far more important issue.

"We may never know whether Bush entered the National Guard to avoid service in Vietnam," Dixon said. "But we do know that thousands of men his age did so, or sought college deferments, or even fled to Canada, to avoid getting killed or maimed.

"And who can blame them? More than 58,000 Americans who fought in this mindless military misadventure never came back.

"The tragedy isn't that Bush, the Guardsman, may have avoided Vietnam. The tragedy is that Bush, the president, has sent more than 1,000 Americans to their deaths in Iraq."

Dixon pointed to several similarities between Vietnam and Iraq: Neither was a defensive war; both were justified based on false claims; and both became increasingly unpopular with the American people as the truth became known.

"Contrast Vietnam and Iraq with World War II," he said. "After the attack on Pearl Harbor, American teen-agers weren't lying to get out of the war; they were lying about their ages to get in.

"In Vietnam, politicians instituted the draft because too few Americans were volunteering to senselessly sacrifice their lives. In Iraq, Bush has already instituted a 'backdoor draft' by extending deployments, and there's little doubt that a formal draft would be just as widely evaded as it was in Vietnam."

The point is that the American people know which wars are essential to national security and which are not, regardless of what the president says, Libertarians say.
"

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

They would much rather concentrate on legalizing ALL mind-bending drugs. I guess their reasoning is if you sit around HIGH all the time, you really won't CARE much about who is killing who.

If you even remotely understood the LP's position on drugs, you would understand it is not even REMOTELY about "being high all the time". It's about ending the stupid prosecution of victimless crimes.

Luckily for you partisan sheep out there, I am not running for President of the United States. Guantanamo Bay would not be nearly large enough to hold all of the "enemy combatants" that I would have rounded up, namely MOST of the Democratic Party and Libertarian Party leadership and their lemming supporters.

If you were President of the United States, wouldn't you have taken an oath to defend the CONSTITUTION? Amendment one might help you out a little bit.

And I hope you enjoyed your little foray into my forum. It is your last.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I like this, Gideon.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Patriot,

After due consideration, I decided to delete your flame. I usually let those kinds of things stand, but hey, the 1st amendment doesn't matter to you in PUBLIC, why should you hide under it on my blogsite? You simply weren't worth the effort.

I kept the two points I wanted to address up, though...so you have some vindication. Have a nice life!

And, thanks, texas.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Only thing I would like to point out is General Cody's Speech yesterday (Gen. Cody is Vice Chief of Staff of the Army).

He covered not only Iraq, but covered the Army's transformation and the near future of the Army, also answered questions as well. Only thing I think he did not cover was the reasons for Iraq (which he has no control over Army goes where they are told) and Stop Loss.

The speech is 1 hour and 10 minutes long, you can find it on C-Span or the article I posted on it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

He covered not only Iraq, but covered the Army's transformation and the near future of the Army, also answered questions as well. Only thing I think he did not cover was the reasons for Iraq (which he has no control over Army goes where they are told) and Stop Loss.

Personally, I have no disagreement with how the Army is fighting this war. They are doing their sworn duty by obeying their commander in chief. I have a problem with the master plan. I am tired of red herrings that state that Iraq was retaliation for 9/11 (it was loosely related at best, although I will agree we needed to work for the removal of Hussein). I am also tired of the insinuation (which, to your credit, you didn't make) that to disagree with the policies of our commander in chief is somehow unpatriotic.

I'll see if I can find the text of the speech.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Not saying one way or the other the reasons for going to Iraq was right or wrong, but the Army is working on training replacement units to the ones in Iraq with updated info each day or after something went wrong or right they dissect it and train the replacements.

Right now the number one threat to soldiers in Iraq is improvised explosive devices (not Bush, not Kerry, etc.), which are killing more innocent Iraqis than US Soldiers.

The Army is taking the necessary precautions to win over there if that is the decision of higher up, but Gen. Cody has said that the war right now in Iraq is a battle of wills which we must win. Though the reasons are bad or not, the Army is there right now and they don't want to just get up and go leaving the nation a mess, got to remember that happened in Somalia. I am just hoping that they capture and weed out the insurgency, so the Army can come home. Of course part of the problem is Iran.

What is the Libertarian Party's position on Iran and how to deal with or handle the situation with Iran?

Successfully updated karma reason!

You deleted the Patriot Flamethrower? I'm forced not to take anything you say seriously ever again. The Patriot and I are opposites on the spectrum, but I'll be damned if I EVER tell him he can't respond to one of my posts like he wants.

I don't like posters who make themselves the gods of deciding what opinions get out and what opinions don't. Understand that people WILL disagree with you, call you names, say things about you that you don't like. That's part of the beauty of blogs and bloggers. We get alot of feedback.

Flamethrower has called me names, but just to rise above the fray of the politically correct nonsense. I take those names with pride. Even super liberal Noam Chomsky said "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. "

Keep posting, Flamethrower, and I say this as a Pinko Commie Liberal to a Nazi Facist Conservative. You've been one of the more interesting posters I've read here, and I like to know how the other side feels, because I don't think my own opinions are sacrosanct enough to kill opposing view points.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What is the Libertarian Party's position on Iran and how to deal with or handle the situation with Iran?

Badnarik doesn't address Iran specifically, but I found some snippets of one of his articles that should give some insight into the LP response. These are pulled from a larger work dealing with the military and Iraq, but I think they fairly represent his position:

First, allow me to dispel a myth. People in the Middle East do not hate us for our freedom. They do not hate us for our lifestyle. They hate us because we have spent many years attempting to force them to emulate our lifestyle.

The U.S. government has meddled in the affairs of the Middle East far too long, always with horrendous results. It overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran and replaced him with the Shah. After making Iranians the enemies of Americans, the U.S. government gave weapons, intelligence and money to Iran's mortal adversary, Saddam Hussein. The U.S. government also helped Libyan Col. Qaddafi come to power, propped up the Saudi monarchy and the Egyptian regime, and gave assistance to Osama bin Laden.

Further, he states, regarding his opinion on the proper response in Iraq:

The proper response would have been to present the evidence as to who committed the heinous act both to Congress and to the people, and have Congress authorize the president to track down the individuals actually responsible, doing everything possible to avoid inflicting harm on innocents.

Finally, in his closing paragraph, he states the following, and while it is a glib analysis, I believe it would fairly represent his position on Iran:

In short, a libertarian foreign policy is one of national defense, and not international offense. It would protect our country, not police the world

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jesus,

When a response becomes a personal attack, I will delete it. I do not have to put up with vicious and hateful bile spewed on my blog; I have been given the tools to deal with such attacks for a reason.

I don't like posters who make themselves the gods of deciding what opinions get out and what opinions don't. Understand that people WILL disagree with you, call you names, say things about you that you don't like.

I understand that. I have been here awhile, Jesus, While it's nice of you to explain the "rules" of JU to me, it's not necessary at this point. Thank you, though.

Flamethrower has called me names, but just to rise above the fray of the politically correct nonsense. I take those names with pride. Even super liberal Noam Chomsky said "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. "

I am a huge advocate for freedom of speech. But that doesn't mean a person has the right to verbally attack me on my blog. Verbally abusive behavior is not reasonable, rationed discussion, and Patriot's response has no place here. Do what you like on your blog site, jesus, and allow me to do as I like on mine. Otherwise, you are suppressing MY freedom of speech by not allowing me editorial control of my blog site. Patriot has every opportunity to counter my posts with an intelligent rebuttal. His response was NOT an intelligent rebuttal, but a personal attack.

If you choose not to take my comments seriously, so be it. I must say, however, that your "warm" reception was not something that would encourage me to visit your blogsite in the future.

Successfully updated karma reason!

While it's nice of you to explain the "rules" of JU to me, it's not necessary at this point. Thank you, though.

Oh, poor baby. I don't really care if you visit my blog in the future. Oh, yeah, here's a link

Link

Be assured you won't be deleted for calling me silly names or having a differing opinion.

I actually LIKED your article, I just disagree with deleting comments. Even if they make you squirm. Don't play the lil kids game "IT's MY TOY and I'll TAKE IT HOME." You're saying "IT'S MY BLOG and I'll supress YOU IF I WANT!"

Be well rounded. Get folks to attack you. Then eat their lunch. That's the way to do it. Respond, don't just delete.

Don't visit me though, that's fine. I get plenty of traffic anyways.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I actually LIKED your article, I just disagree with deleting comments.

And you can disagree all you want, that's fine. That's why I have no intention of deleting your replies.

I don't blog to get into highly charged flame wars. If I present an argument with which you disagree, address the argument, not me, or the Libertarian Party. If you feel the analysis is flawed, as Patriot did, enumerate to me WHY you feel it is flawed, don't just hit and run. Even if I disagree with your analysis, I have no problem with intelligent, reasoned debate. I won't further address my feelings towards Patriot, since, as a blacklistee, he is unable to respond on this forum.

You're saying "IT'S MY BLOG and I'll supress YOU IF I WANT!"

Not quite. I'm not a fan of thread hijacks or red herrings. There's too much of that on message boards as it is. The reader should think of the article as a thesis; a response should be addressed to that thesis. It's a simple procedure really.

There are many bloggers on JU who encourage flame wars on their threads. I don't; it's not my style, frankly, and, well, I'd come up short. I just don't have it in me to flame, and I really don't wish to acquire that skill. Occasionally, I'm up to it, and if so, I usually take it onto someone else's thread. My primary purpose here is to write, and occasionally that includes informing.

I don't see any incongruity in blacklisting someone who stated openly that if he had his way I'd be sitting in a federal prison for my views right now, though.

Be well rounded. Get folks to attack you. Then eat their lunch. That's the way to do it. Respond, don't just delete.

I can honestly count on one hand the number of times I have deleted a response. While it is my blog, I do like to allow opposing opinions, and you'll actually find many of them on my articles (you don't get to the top ten by alienating everyone who disagrees with you). You didn't see the entire post, jesus, and I don't feel your analysis of the situation was in any way fair. You stated your opposition to the PERSON I deleted; it wasn't the person, it was the position.

Blacklist is usually a temporary status with me; all but one user that I have blacklisted has eventually been restored. But it is my option to use, and I feel no guilt over availing myself of it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I'd come up short

you don't get to the top ten

Yeah, I think you'd come up short. That's why you have to delete. You don't have any valid response.

You don't get to the top ten? I don't care about that. You are too concerned, like the girls who had to wear the certain brand of jeans in high school. Go ahead, be a cheerleader and delete anyone who doesn't agree with you. It is ultimately a defeat to anything you say.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You are too concerned, like the girls who had to wear the certain brand of jeans in high school.

No, I try to maintain a standard on my blogs. It's not "all about" points, but readership is important to me for many reasons, none of which I need to elaborate upon, and none of which have to do with "popularity".

Go ahead, be a cheerleader and delete anyone who doesn't agree with you. It is ultimately a defeat to anything you say.

In over 400 articles, I have come across about 4 (maybe a couple more, but I think it's right around that number) people whose responses I have deleted. Trust me when I say I have come across FAR MORE than four who have disagreed with my position.

Patriot's agenda is obvious. He's not here to have any intelligent discussion, he's here to launch as many nasty, personal attacks as he can get away with...his screen name says as much; his responses say as much. While he's certainly welcome to do that, I have editorial controls for a reason.

Do you really think that you have the constitutional right to dig through all the rejected "letters to the editor" of your local paper because of freedom of speech, jesus? I've got news for you....you don't. If you walked into the office and demanded to do so, the editor would not let you do so. I can pretty much guarantee that.

I let stand patriot's more salient points on my response, though.

Have you missed the obvious yet? That if I deleted everyone who disagreed with me, your responses wouldn't still be on here.

Anyway, enough with the thread hijack. I've said my points, you've said your points.

Successfully updated karma reason!

"The tragedy isn't that Bush, the Guardsman, may have avoided Vietnam. The tragedy is that Bush, the president, has sent more than 1,000 Americans to their deaths in Iraq."

What a great quote!

Successfully updated karma reason!