About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Libertarian Saturday
Author: TriSec    Date: 04/12/2008 12:15:23

Good Morning!

Blecccch. It's a typical spring weekend here in New England...cold, gray, and rainy. So naturally, us crazy Boy Scouts are headed out into the field! Fortunately, we rented a couple of cabins at Camp Massasoit way down by the Sagamore Bridge (almost on the Cape). We'll see how we do...


So...as the endless primary season drags on without a clear winner on the Democratic side, and a clear loser on the Republican side, there's been some rumblings about a spoiler. It's not Ralph Nader...if anyone in America is more insignificant to this process, I have yet to see him. No....it could be the Libertarians. As more and more people become disillusioned with the process and start to look for other outlets, more people are finding their way to the LP's doorstep. (Go figure, I wandered away from the parties for just this reason in the early part of this century, but as you saw last week, I'm headed back for the 2008 election cycle...) Party membership is up by 28% this year, and it might just be significant this year.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Libertarian Party says that the surge of criticism regarding its potential as a spoiler in the 2008 presidential election is understandable, but that the time for political expediency in American politics is finished.

"Far too long have Americans felt it necessary to waste their vote for the 'lesser of two evils' just for the sake of not crossing partisan lines," says Libertarian Party Executive Director Shane Cory. "That's not how our elections should be. Americans are tired of status quo politics and want a candidate in who they can believe -- not just a candidate who will do the least amount of harm."

Libertarians state that the failure of McCain to capture the conservative base of the Republican Party, and the heated split in the Democratic Party between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, will help advance their agenda of smaller government, lower taxes and maximized liberty.

"True conservatives within the Republican Party are not convinced that John McCain is one of them," says Libertarian Party National Media Coordinator Andrew Davis. "Many people who are both socially tolerant and fiscally responsible are looking to the Libertarian Party, which is much more in line with their core beliefs, as a possible alternative to John McCain in 2008. Additionally, some voters who may typically cast a vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama may choose to support the Libertarian Party due to the current economic crisis and the lack of solutions offered by those candidates."

At the end of 2007, the Libertarian Party announced it had seen a surge in membership of 28 percent. The Party believed the success of Ron Paul's campaign, coupled with growing dissatisfaction with the current political establishment, was driving people away from the major two parties into Libertarian ranks.

"The Libertarian Party has the very real potential to capture principled voters in 2008," says Cory. "It's going to be a good year for America."


It's exciting times for the party...but I don't actually agree with the last sentence. If the LP splits the vote and we end up with President McCain....it will be a catastrophic year for America.



And just to illustrate how catastrophic...this comes to us from Patrick Buchanan, of all people, (bet you thought you'd never see him here!) about how the neocons will have their war. He's already supposing that the President has a blank check to invade, thanks to the inactivity of the Democratic congress. And if Bush doesn't cash it...McCain sure as hell will.

The neocons may yet get their war on Iran.

Ever since President Nouri al-Maliki ordered the attacks in Basra on the Mahdi Army, Gen. David Petraeus has been laying the predicate for U.S. air strikes on Iran and a wider war in the Middle East.

Iran, Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee, has "fueled the recent violence in a particularly damaging way through its lethal support of the special groups."

These "special groups" are "funded, trained, armed and directed by Iran's Quds Force with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of government (the Green Zone) ... causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital."

Is the Iranian government aware of this – and behind it?

"President Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders" promised to end their "support for the special groups," said the general, but the "nefarious activities of the Quds force have continued."

Are Iranians then murdering Americans, asked Joe Lieberman:

"Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups in Iraq are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?"

"It certainly is. ... That is correct," said Petraeus.

The following day, Petraeus told the House Armed Services Committee, "Unchecked, the 'special groups' pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq."

Translation: The United States is now fighting the proxies of Iran for the future of Iraq.

The general's testimony is forcing Bush's hand, for consider the question it logically raises: If the Quds Force and Hezbollah, both designated as terrorist organizations, are arming, training and directing "special groups" to "murder" Americans, and rocket and mortar the Green Zone to kill our diplomats, and they now represent the No. 1 threat to a free Iraq, why has Bush failed to neutralize these base camps of terror and aggression?

Hence, be not surprised if President Bush appears before the TV cameras, one day soon, to declare:

"My commanding general in Iraq, David Petraeus, has told me that Iran, with the knowledge of President Ahmadinejad, has become a privileged sanctuary for two terrorist organizations – Hezbollah and the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard – to train, arm and direct terrorist attacks on U.S. and coalition forces, despite repeated promises to halt this murderous practice.

"I have therefore directed U.S. air and naval forces to begin air strikes on these base camps of terror. Our attacks will continue until the Iranian attacks cease."

Because of the failures of a Democratic Congress elected to end the war, Bush can now make a compelling case that he would be acting fully within his authority as commander in chief.

In early 2007, Nancy Pelosi pulled down a resolution that would have denied Bush the authority to attack Iran without congressional approval. In September, both Houses passed the Kyl-Lieberman resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

Courtesy of Congress, Bush thus has a blank check for war on Iran. And the signs are growing that he intends to fill it in and cash it.

Israel has been hurling invective at Iran and conducting security drills to prepare its population for rocket barrages worse than those Hezbollah delivered in the Lebanon War.

Adm. William "Fox" Fallon, the Central Command head who opposed war with Iran, has been removed. Hamas and Hezbollah have been stocking up on Qassam and Katyusha rockets.

Vice President Cheney has lately toured Arab capitals.

And President Ahmadinejad just made international headlines by declaring that Tehran will begin installing 6,000 advanced centrifuges to accelerate Iran's enrichment of uranium.

This is Bush's last chance to strike and, when Iran responds, to effect its nuclear castration. Are Bush and Cheney likely to pass up this last chance to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and effect the election of John McCain? For any attack on Iran's "terrorist bases" would rally the GOP and drive a wedge between Obama and Hillary.

Indeed, Sen. Clinton, who voted to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, could hardly denounce Bush for ordering air strikes on the Revolutionary Guards' Quds Force, when Petraeus testified, in her presence, that it is behind the serial murder of U.S. soldiers.

The Iranians may sense what is afoot. For Tehran helped broker the truce in the Maliki-Sadr clash in Basra, and has called for a halt to the mortar and rocket attacks on the Green Zone.

With a friendly regime in Baghdad that rolled out the red carpet for Ahmadinejad, Iran has nothing to gain by war. Already, it is the big winner from the U.S. wars that took down Tehran's Taliban enemies, decimated its al-Qaida enemies and destroyed its Sunni enemies, Saddam and his Baath Party.

No, it is not Iran that wants a war with the United States. It is the United States that has reasons to want a short, sharp war with Iran.


So....this is why they must be stopped.





 

32 comments (Latest Comment: 04/13/2008 04:27:44 by livingonli)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati