Now, in my humble opinion, the main issue facing any opponent in the upcoming presidential election is the War in Iraq. Most people already know where George Bush and John Kerry stand on the issue. That is, their stances are basically the same; continue the status quo.
But, what of the Libertarian candidate? In fact, what of all three of the Libertarian candidates before the recent Libertarian Convention? Did the delegates choose the right person for the job with the war in Iraq in mind?
This is an important question. Chiefly because a number of very strong anti-war libertarians showed utter destain at the candidate chosen. Here are each of the three candidates positions as stated during the Libertarian Presidential Debates. You decide who holds the strongest moral position on the issue.
Moderator:
There are a lot of things about the Patriot Act and the War on Terror that you may choose to criticize and that your party has been critical of. But, let’s turn the clock back to the morning of September 11th, 2001. From that crucial point, could you lay out briefly how you would have coped with the treat facing the nation? And, what would you have hoped to accomplish by now?
Gary Nolan:
What I would have done is get the evidence into the hands of Congress and let them decide whether or not the indications were that we should be declaring war anywhere. It’s not a job to be advocated by the American President.
If the evidence indicated in fact that we should be going to war then the job, the primary job, would have been in this case to go after the Taliban who were protecting Al Queda. Weakness in the face of aggression invites aggression. If we have the evidence and it proves that they are responsible, we need to respond.
That said, we had no reason to invade Iraq.
Thank you.
Michael Badnarik:
Libertarians are very strong on defense, but we also want the evidence. We need to know exactly who did what and why. Congress has the power to declare war. They also have the power to issue letters of Marque and Reprisal. Instead of sending 100,000 troops overseas, we could probably send a smaller group of, uh, U.S. Navy Seals or Army Rangers and get the people who actually did this. But, we need to have the evidence.
Congress does not have the authority to grant the President Carte Blanch to go off and do whatever he chooses to do. (Unintelligible) concerned about the fact that Osama Bin Laden was originally labeled as the culprit who perpetrated this atrocity. How have we gone from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussien? Where is the logic that allowed us to switch from Afghanistan to Iraq?
Aaron Russo:
Well, we finally have a division in our thoughts. If I were president on 9-11, I would have gotten the evidence of who did it, showed it to the people; I would not have gone to congress to declare war. I would have gone, no matter where they were, whoever did it, I would have gone into any border with a police action, and not declared war and gotten the S.O.B.s that did that, no matter where they were in the world. Ok?
I don’t think that a war against some force, that we don’t know who it is a war. It’s a Police Action. And, the President doesn’t have to go to congress for a Police Action. And, I certainly would not have removed the Taliban from Afghanistan, or invaded Afghanistan with our troops. The Taliban had nothing to do with what happened. And, as a matter of fact, the Taliban said to George Bush, give us the evidence of what happened, and we’ll give you Osama Bin Laden. And what George Bush did was said “I don’t have to give it to you, I’ve already given it to Tony Blair”! As if that matters.
Alright? So, I would not have invaded Afghanistan but, I would have gotten the people who did it no matter where they were by a Police Action. And I would not have declared war.
Thank you.
