Topic: Iraq
Bob Barr Voted for the Iraq War but Says He is Sorry (PART 2/6) Dear Bob Barr - Sorry doesn't cut it. Here's why and what to do. Signed, a Ron Paul Revolutionaryby Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
(libertarian)
Friday, June 6, 2008
Dear Mr. Barr,
You were in Congress and voted for the Iraq Resolution of 2002, authorizing the President to step up the war with Iraq and invade. Apparently you now truly regret this and call for withdrawal from Iraq. The sentiment is that you were tricked like the rest of us. So after serving in the House for eight (8) years, you still had not read and understood the Constitution of the United States (Art 1, Sec 8, Cl 10) and were willing to authorize preemptive wars against Sovereign Nations - Iraq just because it allegedly has Weapons of Mass Destruction. What kind of President will you make, sir? By this logic we should attack Israel, Russia, or what the heck Colombia has drugs and bombs too. Give you a chance, some write. Praytell, why should I? Overall Politicians are a slippery bunch, that's why its best to use y'all's past voting records to judge y'all. And if Clinton, McCain, and Barr were all tricked into voting Aye, why wasn't Ron Paul, five other Republicans, one Independent and 126 other Democrats in the House fooled? Why weren't one Republican, one Independent, and 21 Democrats in the Senate fooled?
Next I will judge you simply by what you post on your websites. At your Presidential campaign website, if one goes to "Issues" then "National Defense" this is what is posted.
"For far too long and at the cost of American blood and treasure, our great military has been too willingly and quickly used for purposes other than national defense. Our fighting men and women deserve better and the integrity of our nation must be restored.
"Our National Defense policy must renew a commitment to non-intervention. We are not the world's police force and our long, yet recently tarnished, tradition of respecting the sovereignty of other nations is necessary, not from only a moral standpoint, but to regain the respect of the world as a principled and peaceful nation.
"The proper use of force is clear. If attacked, the aggressor will experience firsthand the skillful wrath of the American fighting man. However, invading or initiating force against another nation based upon perceived threats and speculative intelligence is simply un-American. We are better than the policy of pre-emptive warfare."
Not bad, sir! No preemptive war and a foreign policy of nonintervention are central tenets of the Ron Paul Revolution. However, what happens if the "American fighting man" is attacked - let's be hypothetical - by Israelis WHILE they are executing the Preemptive War you voted for in Iraq. Do we then go bomb and invade Israel? What if you turn this around and replace Israelis with Iranians? Pakistanis?
So where does it say we will withdraw from Iraq? (and how about Afghanistan too - I hear Americans are dying there too) Sir, you are running for the Office of the President of the United States. Are you going to "change the world in days" by giving us the Paulian noninventionalist foreign policy or not? Forget getting rid of the IRS for a moment (although I agree) - as President you won't have the power to immediately do that without Congress. However, as Commander-in-Chief you can bring all our troops home. (And eventually I do mean all - people forget we have 75,000 troops in Germany, 40,000 in South Korea, 40,000 in Japan, and another 40,000 in the rest of Europe.)
Well on your Presidential website, let's keep clicking - Articles, then Iraq War. There is one article posted here and 80% of its about crap like the woes of land developers on Jekyll Island (hey, isn't that where the Federal Reserve started?)
"This may surprise many readers (indeed, readers easily shocked may wish not to proceed further), but I actually believe positive events occurred in 2007. Regardless of how one feels about the war in Iraq and I am among those believing the invasion and continued occupation of this Middle Eastern nation ("nation building," if you will) was and remains ill-advised the performance of our armed forces in Iraq improved dramatically this past year, especially in the last half of the year. Whether this was the result of increasing the number of troops or the consequence of a shift in tactical decision-making by their commanders or both the drop in combat casualties and the significance decrease in Iraqi civilian deaths, has been pronounced. To be sure, the underlying problems in Iraq remain unresolved, and the enhanced stability manifesting itself in the past several months may prove temporary; but a significant decrease in military and civilian casualties is never a bad thing."
OK, first there's nothing about an immediate withdrawal here, you just write that the Iraq War was "ill-advised" how about you mention here you were "an ill advisor" yourself, eh? Second WHY ARE YOU LYING TO ME? Or at least doctoring the truth, let me explain. In 2007, and you wrote about the whole year, as the death rate did slow late in the year but for other, more sadistic reasons - sounds like you don't have a clue what they were, if you want to know just ask Ron Paul. American combat deaths in 2007 were the highest ever in the Iraq war at 901 deaths, or 75 per month. Visit here and tabulate the deaths yourself. And where's your proof for what you write? No one really knows how many Iraqis have died. The last best estimate was the 2006 Lancet study which put the deaths at 655,000. That mortality rate extrapolated means over 1,000,000 Iraqis have died to date. And if you cannot reliably measure it, how can you say that there is a drop?
Sir, were you alive during the Vietnam war? Do you know how many people died then? Per Wiki, you were at 20 years of age during the middle of it but didn't serve - I am not judging you, but why didn't you? - as your father had in the military. Vietnam and Iraq are both 'successful' in that our civilian-insurgent-to-US-soldier kill ratios are really high, but that doesn't make our troops any less dead, or their presence any less wrong. And you should probably add in to the total all the suicides from the pour souls who committed suicide after returning home, minds crazed by all that they saw and did in Iraq.
Not done yet. Let's see I click on Articles - Foreign Policy, what do I get? One article on the woes of US companies based Colombia - I'm not too interested. Second - an article whining about how Iraq's borders have priority over our own borders here at home - true, I agree with the premise, you forgot we can't even build our own bridges - but the articles a bit of a brain-fart. Repeat after me: I Can Solve the Problem by Bringing the Troops Home. As President, I Can and Will Call for Immediate Withdrawal. Third, an article about not rushing to war against Iran. Agree with the premise again, but inside the article we have differences. Since I think Iran is our next preemptive war let's spend a moment here. Yes, the link is outdated - from October 2007 - but you still have it posted on your website in June 2008 and are still using it to convince people like me to vote for you. Sorry, no mercy for you just yet. You wrote:
"Should Washington simply sit back and leave Iran alone - free to support terrorist groups and regimes in other countries, including Iraq, and to develop a nuclear capability? Of course not. Even considering that our lengthy and continuing occupation of Iraq has greatly strengthened Ahmadinejad, the United States has a clear and legitimate stake in what happens in Iran and with regard to matters in which that regime is involved elsewhere
"Positive steps could include strengthening economic and political pressure on Iran, and increased efforts to quietly but actively build on the deep base of political understanding that already exists among a large segment of the Iranian population (and including the more than one million Iranian-Americans)."
Earth to Barr, Earth to Barr. It is June 2008. We already declared financial war on Iran in March, in effect telling the rest of the world not to do any business with Iran, allegedly because all their banks are frequented by terrorists. This is exactly how we beat Iraq into submission in the closing year of the last century, but Iran won't go down as easily, eh? Maybe we will one day bomb the high school you attended in Tehran when your father was serving in the military, how will that make you feel? I understand Iran is a 'complex issue,' but pardon me, the writing above doesn't sound like a true noninterventionalist writing. "Leave Iran alone... Of course not."
So here's an idea for you to win the election. You DO know you need to do something radical to have a shot at winning, right? How about you go to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran and personally apologize in all of the major city centers main squares with a translator and a bullhorn that you rue your Vote to blow up Iraq due to all the death, destruction it caused? Tell a few parents you are sorry you killed their kids, or tell the kids you are sorry you killed their parents. And if elected President you will stop the American Military Empire and bring a real 'Pax Americana' - by leaving right away. That would convince me! Think of all the publicity it would generate. And what courage and humility that would take! Although, some would argue stupidity, where do you stand?
Well, I'm done sharing my views with you on your Iraq War vote. If you support withdrawal, HOW ABOUT YOU WRITE IT DOWN ON YOUR WEBSITE USING CAPITAL LETTERS LIKE THIS. That way you won't forget. And if you are scared of getting shot while apologizing all over the Middle East, write the letter and pay my airfare and expenses, I'll get it read for you. I would rather be shot over there then get shot one day in my home country for being a dissenter of my Government. Oh wait, I forgot, We are fighting and killing Them over There, so They won't kill us Here.
In Liberty,
Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
PS As I wrote in my first letter, do I qualify as a Bob Barr-defined "Idiot of the Week" yet?
The views expressed in this
article are those of Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Yes Jake no one is as perfect as you. You are the smartest person on the planet, why don't you run for congress.
Bob Barr has been fighting against the war since early 2004, and obviously he should have not voted for it. But hey the guy said he was wrong, not too many politicians would ever admit to that. Unlike lying Obama who would have voted for it just like Hillary did when she was in the Senate if he had gotten the chance.
So go and find Mr Perfect, and live in your telephone booth sized party of perfect people. Bottom line was the Ron Paul was Mr. Perfect and it scared a whole bunch of people off.
I agree with what Joe Lawson said. Ron Paul was so "perfect" that he scared people away. He was also so "perfect" and such a "strict constitutionalist" that he never got anything done. I can't think of one piece of legislation that Ron Paul got passed. He has written many bills but they either didn't pass or they never even made it out of committee. I love Ron Paul! Don't get me wrong. But I need a president who can get things done. Ron Paul, for the present time, is mainly a political protester. His ideas, even though I agree with all of them, are too radical for the present time. So that is why he is mainly a protester. His ideas will "come to life" when his "Revolution" successfully elects "Ron Paul Republicans" into office. Then there will be more than one "Ron Paul" in office.
But thats later on down the road... What do we do now in this presidential election of 2008? And don't give me any BS about writing in "Ron Paul" on your ballot. If you do that then you are an idiot. Considering the fact that a lot of states don't allow that. You can either not vote (which is the only way a voter truely "wastes" their vote), or vote for Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin. Chuck Baldwin will not be on the ballot in a lot of states so voting for him is almost as pointless as writing in "Ron Paul" or "Mickey Mouse". So I think that only leaves us with Bob Barr. He isn't the "perfect" candidate. My only comfort in voting for Bob Barr is knowing that he will not win the presidency anyway. He can get anywhere from 7-20% of the vote depending on how events unfold. And that will take enough votes from McCain making him loose the election, hurt the GOP, and help the RP Revolution even further in its effort in restructuring the GOP.
Libertarians wonder why they have been irrelevant in its 30+ years of existence. A lot of it has to do with the two party monopoly. Some of it also has to do with its "radical" message that scares a lot of people because they don't understand it. But a big reason is that libertarians are not united because they are too busy fighting one another over ideological purity. And "Jake, the Champion of the Constitution" is one of those libertarians who are marginalizing the libertarian movement.
Citing that old, and discredited(it used estimates,not body counts-in other words-it was based on nothing), Lancet survey on the total death figure as an excuse to call someone a liar on statements about a trend(that you acknowledge in virtually the same sentence)-and then inflating the original inflated figure- has cost you all of your credibility with me.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-06-25 08:39:46
Dear Mike Stahl,
I write this column also to be educated which you did in a few of my other articles, thanks for your comment. I've read the Lancet report in full and its estimation of mortality rates was logical to me. You called the study "old" and "discredited".
Why is "old" bad? Yes the study only looked at an approx 3 year period, but this period can still be examined - and could be extrapolated as an estimate as from the news from Iraq taken as a whole since 2006 doesn't appear to contain any great reason to assume the mortality rates are either greatly increasing or decreasing. Just because something is old doesnt mean its bad - take the constitution or a 55 Chevy.
Second, you said it was "discredited" since it was "based on estimates, not body counts" I would be interested to know your source for this, really, so I could read in more detail. I agree body counts are better, but really they are just better to document an absolute minimum. You have to scientifically estimate if you want to yes, guess, guesstimate, whatever the whole total. Please share the "skull-counting" mortality studies for Khmer Rouge, for the Rape of Nanking and Hitler's camps in WWII. Or for the Chinese dying of famine under Mao, etc, etc. Who is going into Iraq and counting the civilian bodies? Probably not the military, or did you forget Tommy Franks "We don't do body counts". Iraqbodycount.org's got the figures at 90,000, but correct me if I am wrong but I don't see them running all over Iraq counting skulls.
Anyways, point me today to the definitive source on Iraq civilian deaths that is within 10% of the real number and can prove it, and I will give you a picture of me smiling while pulling the lever for Barr in November. (although i still might do so even if you can't)
And anyways, back to the point, how can Barr point to a significant decrease in Iraqi civilian deaths without such a tracking tool?
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-06-25 09:00:08
Dear Jeremiah,
Thanks for your comment. I agree with what you said about the revolution succeeding when RP republicans are elected to office. However, I do take exception to the statement "libertarians are not united because they are too busy fighting one another over ideological purity. And "Jake, the Champion of the Constitution" is one of those libertarians who are marginalizing the libertarian movement." since you applied this to me. If others want to have a libertarian movement, war movement, abortion movement, gay marraige movement, love movement, bowel movement, whatever, okay, its no problem with me. I do not intend in my writing to marginalize libertarians (you). And although the NC survey results names me as a libertarian, I am not a member of the Libertarian party. And if "ideologically pure" means being wholeheartedly against the war and not liking those who voted for it thats fine by me if this is meant by you to be an evil. And speaking of names....
So if I write in Ron Paul, you stated you will think I am an idiot. Fantastic, that really made my day, I love people that tell me I am an idiot if I decide to vote for someone else. I hear Minnie Mouse will also do quite well this year, at least in Montana. Respect for others opinions is so rampant in the US these days. Can you also nominate me for Barr's Idiot of the Week contest? Can't you see, I did my best to qualify.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
