You are herecontent / Bush Meets Privately With Think Tank Promoting Military Strike On Iran
Bush Meets Privately With Think Tank Promoting Military Strike On Iran
This tidbit about President Bush’s schedule was buried in today’s Washington Post:
Bush traveled Friday night to Stanford University, where he met privately with members of the libertarian Hoover Institution to discuss the war. He concluded the day with a private dinner held by George P. Shultz, a Hoover fellow and former secretary of state.
Why is this significant? The Hoover Institution is a think tank that has been aggressively promoting the viability of a preemptive military strike in Iran. Here’s just a couple of recent examples —
Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at Hoover:
[Europe] will be able to think of all sorts of nicer alternatives to taking out Iran’s nuclear development sites. They will be able to come up with all sorts of abstract arguments and moral equivalence, such as: Other countries have nuclear weapons. Why not Iran? Debating abstract questions is much easier than confronting concrete and often brutal alternatives. The big question is whether we are serious or suicidal. [Creators Syndicate, 1/3/06]
Tod Lindberg, a research fellow at Hoover:
Whatever it is that Saddam was going to perpetrate in his remaining years in power, whatever he intended to bequeath to his sons and whatever in turn they would do to follow up on his legacy, this we have prevented… Which takes us back to Iran…I don’t think it would be a good idea to wait around in the hope that we never arrive at the moment when we realize we should have done something. [Washington Times, 4/18/06]
George P. Schultz, who hosted the event, was an “early defender of the use of pre-emptive force to deal with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq.”
- Login or register to post comments
-
- Email this page
- Printer-friendly version
Sowell is right. How could anyone possibly find any "moral equivalence" between the U.S. and Iran. The possession of thousands of nuclear weapons to advance the noble cause of "full spectrum dominance" is inherently good. The mere possibility of developing a few nuclear weapons in hopes of detering "pre-emptive" attacks furthering that noble cause is inherently bad.
Who determines the definitions wins the debate every time. Countries are "free" and "democratic" when the U.S. declares them to be so (i.e., when they give the interests and demands of USA Incorporated precedence over those of their own people) and not otherwise. By that standard, the U.S. itself is, of course, very "free and democratic". But, unfortunately, some damned "furreigners", being the immoral SOBs that they all are, just don't seem to understand and accept the same definitions for those terms.
__
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between. - Oscar Wilde
I don't know where the Washington Post gets off calling the Hoover Institute "libertarian". Maybe they're trying to give cheap shots a good name. Before anyone buys that lie, please read the following from the Libertarian Party Platform:
IV. Foreign Affairs
B. Military
1. Military Policy
Transitional Action:
"We call for the withdrawal of all American military personnel stationed abroad, including the countries of NATO Europe, Japan, the Philippines, Central America and South Korea. There is no current or foreseeable risk of any conventional military attack on the American people, particularly from long distances. We call for the withdrawal of the U.S. from commitments to engage in war on behalf of other governments and for abandonment of doctrines supporting military intervention such as the Monroe Doctrine."
That's the libertarian position on the the role of the U.S military.
For my part, I've called upon the U.S. military personnel stationed in Iraq individually and collectively, to mutiny and return to the U.S.in direct defiance of their superiors:
http://www.smallgov.org/?p=210
I Have pointed out how the United States Government is responsible for initiating the conflict; and therefore bears sole responsibility for ending it by the only practical means available; unilateral withdrawal:
http://www.smallgov.org/?p=188
Furthermore, I have called for the impeachment, arrest, public trial and summary execution the the so-called "president",georgewbush for treason and war crimes:
http://www.smallgov.org/?p=154
These, I submit as the Libertarian position on these matters.
If these be treason; if these be sedition, so be it. I for one, will continue to engage in "treason" and "sedition" against the White House squatter with pride.
While it's been suggested that the latter was a bit "over the top", no one I know of that refers to themselves as "Libertarian" has offered any disagreement.
If you encounter any, please feel free to call them liars and hypocrites on my behalf.
I'd ask the Washington Post for a retraction and an apology, but in case you hadn't noticed, I'm not exactly a forgiving soul.
---The Bikemessenger