With Blinders On? Bush Campaign Writes Off Libertarian Candidate

http://lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=669

August 17, 2004

'Realign' our troops back home, Mr. Bush

WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's plan for a massive realignment of U.S. troops is half right, says Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik: All U.S. forces should be re-deployed -- right back to the United States.

"Bush wants to remove U.S. troops from places where they don't belong, then put them in other places where they don't belong," says Badnarik. "It's time to bring all of our men and women home and start using them for defensive purposes only."

In a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Monday in Cincinnati, Bush announced that in order to make the military more agile in the war on terrorism, approximately 70,000 U.S. troops would be shifted from Cold War-era bases in Europe and Asia.

Some would be stationed in the United States, while others would be sent to the Middle East, the former Soviet republics and South Asia.

But moving more U.S. troops into the Middle East and volatile central Asian nations may provoke more terrorism than it prevents, Libertarians say.

"The U.S. military presence in the Middle East has been used as a justification for several terrorist attacks, including the September 11 tragedy," Badnarik said.

"How long can politicians pretend to be surprised when terrorist threats turn into bloody reality? How many more innocent Americans have to lose their lives before U.S. policy makers come to their senses and stop interfering in other nations' affairs?"

While removing U.S. troops from Germany 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet threat is a positive development, putting them in harm's way elsewhere makes no sense, Badnarik says.

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says the goal of Bush's plan is to create more 'deployment locations' for U.S. troops," he notes. "But what politicians call deployment locations are actually wars waiting to happen.

"In recent history, presidents have deployed our troops to locations like Vietnam, Lebanon, Bosnia, Somalia and Iraq, and each time Americans died needlessly. The lesson is that politicians can't be trusted to distinguish between national defense and military adventurism.

"Bush's plan is nothing more than more military adventurism, and it's only a matter of time before innocent Americans pay the price -- again."
 
tpahl said:
If all you think about is the extreme short term, then yes. But if you think past this january and look at what a strong badnarik showing will do to the major parties and who they decide to run 4 years from now for president or even next year in the senate or house, or state legislatures, ect... you will begin to see that it is worth it to vote for who you beleive in. The two major parties will learn they can not take your vote for granted and will begin selecting candiates that are more libertarian and less authoritarian.

I'm thinking of the next four years with kerry for a president and it turns my stomach. That's as long term as we can afford to think right now. The time for developing a viable third or fourth party is after the election, not a few months before. If you or your candidate were serious about your party you would work to build it years before the election. But much like Perot in '92, I believe you're more concerned with making a statement than with the best interest of the country.

For right now you need to put away idealistic platitudes and deal with reality. The reality is that a vote for Badnarik is a vote for kerry.
 
tpahl said:
Kerry supports all the things Bush does in the war on terror. The only critisism he has is that it is being run by a republican.

Seemed best to let the Libertarian Party and Badnarik respond to tpahl, without commentary. Now that both have had a chance to be read, let's say that we not misrepresent Bush's take, ok Travis?
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Really, it depends on when you ask him and who you are and what he thinks you want to hear. His "gain respect for america" is code for "sell out to the u.n." and you know it.

If he supported bush in the war on terror he would be consistently for america, the troops, would've supported the 87 billion dollars etc. He's a flip flopping, characterless, cretinesque, playboy, megalomaniac liar. Very bad for america.

He is a politician, of course he tries to say what you want to hear, but what he has actually voted on is for war and then not to fund it. This is consistant with what I said, he likes the war but does not like that a republican is leading it. Therefore he votes for war and then votes not to fund it as much as the president wants so that it will hopefully not succeed.

Bush has not supported every funding that the military has requested either however. They are remarkedly similar.
 
Merlin1047 said:
I'm thinking of the next four years with kerry for a president and it turns my stomach.

Why? Are you afraid he would increase domestic spending faster than any president since LBJ? Or that he would support an extension of the assualt weapons ban? Or that he would send troops to countries all over the world in nation building exercises?

That's as long term as we can afford to think right now. The time for developing a viable third or fourth party is after the election, not a few months before. If you or your candidate were serious about your party you would work to build it years before the election.

The libertarian party has been around for nearly 30 years. It was not created months before the election.

But much like Perot in '92, I believe you're more concerned with making a statement than with the best interest of the country.

Perot brought the idea of a balanced budget to the table. Both parties realized that without bringing us a balanced budget they would lose more and more votes to the reform party. Soon after Clinton was bringing us semi balanced budgets (if you ignore Social security).

For right now you need to put away idealistic platitudes and deal with reality. The reality is that a vote for Badnarik is a vote for kerry.

The reality is that if i were not voting for badnarik I would not be voting at all. Bush and Kerry are both liberals that I would be ashamed to vote for. My vote for badnarik can be interpreted however you would like, but the reality is it is a vote for small government.

However many other people who would have voted for kerry or bush are instead voting for badnarik. Both Bush and Kerry would benifit from not ignoring this.

Travis
 
Kathianne said:
Seemed best to let the Libertarian Party and Badnarik respond to tpahl, without commentary. Now that both have had a chance to be read, let's say that we not misrepresent Bush's take, ok Travis?

I have not misrepresented Bushs take. OK kathianne?
 
tpahl said:
He is a politician, of course he tries to say what you want to hear, but what he has actually voted on is for war and then not to fund it. This is consistant with what I said, he likes the war but does not like that a republican is leading it. Therefore he votes for war and then votes not to fund it as much as the president wants so that it will hopefully not succeed.

Bush has not supported every funding that the military has requested either however. They are remarkedly similar.

Since deciding to run for president, Kerry has done and said whatever he thinks is going to be popular. Problem is, he changes it to fit whoever he is speaking to at the time, hence the flip flops. Opinion polls showed that there was support for going to war in Iraq, so Kerry voted for it. By the time the vote for funding came around, support for the war had dropped and Howard Dean's anti-Bush movement was well under way, so he voted against funding. Yes, politicians are going to tell you what you want to hear to a point, but Kerry takes it to an extreme.

Now that he has the anybody but Bush people wrapped up, Kerry is changing again and trying to woo the swing voters by totally contradicting his voting record and many of the things he said during the campaign. I think that whole thing is going to end up blowing up in his face and he may very well lose some of the support he had.

Bush and Kerry are far from remarkedly similar. The only thing they MIGHT be close on is gun control, and that's a big might.
 
tpahl said:
I have not misrepresented Bushs take. OK kathianne?

Isn't it time for you to go out and play?

I just realized something: I've wasted much of my early afternoon talking about Michael Badnarik, a man who has as much of a chance to effect the outcome of this election as Pee Wee Herman. I believe I'll spend the rest of my time before work doing something that has a point, like clipping my toenails or something.
 
Jimmyeatworld said:
Isn't it time for you to go out and play?

I just realized something: I've wasted much of my early afternoon talking about Michael Badnarik, a man who has as much of a chance to effect the outcome of this election as Pee Wee Herman. I believe I'll spend the rest of my time before work doing something that has a point, like clipping my toenails or something.

If you do not wish to discuss Badnarik, just do not discuss him. i certainly did not force you to. And I certainly did not say anything to warrent a rude response from you. I merely pointed out that Kathianne seems to have been confused about which two candidates foriegn policies were similar.

it is good for you to consider other options and I commend you for spending a morning doing so. As the article I originally posted points out, more bush & Kerry supporters need to take the blinders off because Badnarik WILL effect the outcome of this election.

Travis
 
tpahl said:
He is a politician, of course he tries to say what you want to hear, but what he has actually voted on is for war and then not to fund it. This is consistant with what I said, he likes the war but does not like that a republican is leading it. Therefore he votes for war and then votes not to fund it as much as the president wants so that it will hopefully not succeed.

Bush has not supported every funding that the military has requested either however. They are remarkedly similar.

No. It's inconsistent. Here's why: Kerry is willing make the war not succeed for political reasons. This willingness to endanger the country for political reasons represents a markedy different world view and approach to security. A shittier one. SO he will not be just as fine for the war on terror as you posited.

They are meaningfully different.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
No. It's inconsistent. Here's why: Kerry is willing make the war not succeed for political reasons. This willingness to endanger the country for political reasons represents a markedy different world view and approach to security. A shittier one. SO he will not be just as fine for the war on terror as you posited.

They are meaningfully different.

I think it is not difficult to make just as strong of arguements that Bush too has been willing to use the war on terror for political reasons and endangered us by misrepresenting and lying about facts to convince the country to go to war.

The games they play are the same, they just play for different teams, and you seem to be rooting for the elephants instead of the donkeys.
 
tpahl said:
I think it is not difficult to make just as strong of arguements that Bush too has been willing to use the war on terror for political reasons and endangered us by misrepresenting and lying about facts to convince the country to go to war.
The games they play are the same, they just play for different teams, and you seem to be rooting for the elephants instead of the donkeys.


Enlighten us on the bold part.
 
Kathianne said:
Enlighten us on the bold part.

It is not the topic of this thread and I am sure there are plenty of other threads discussing the topic. If you are not familiar with such arguements feel free to go back and read the news from the past year or so.

Travis
 
tpahl said:
It is not the topic of this thread and I am sure there are plenty of other threads discussing the topic. If you are not familiar with such arguements feel free to go back and read the news from the past year or so.

Travis

You are so full of it!
 
tpahl said:
I think it is not difficult to make just as strong of arguements that Bush too has been willing to use the war on terror for political reasons and endangered us by misrepresenting and lying about facts to convince the country to go to war.
It's difficult to do it well and convincingly. To make that argument is to imply the war on terror isn't real. But it is real. Glitches in the intel system don't invalidate the fact that there is a globally organized radical muslim terrorist organization bent on destroying the western world. Why don't you quit pretending you're not a liberal? Or as a libertarian, tell me how ignoring the buildup of nukes in iran or syria or North Korea is a good idea.
The games they play are the same, they just play for different teams, and you seem to be rooting for the elephants instead of the donkeys.

Again their policies and worldviews are still substantially different. You're being manipulated by antiamerican forces.
 
tpahl said:
It is not the topic of this thread and I am sure there are plenty of other threads discussing the topic. If you are not familiar with such arguements feel free to go back and read the news from the past year or so.

Travis

If it's not the topic of this thread, why did YOU bring it up? If you are going to make accusations or post things to support your weak argument, you need to be prepared to back it up.

When the topic of a thread is based on bullshit, what is there left to do but get rude? :gross2:
 
Kathianne said:
You are so full of it!

For following the rules you always accuse me of breaking, or for not rehashing the last year of news in regards to Bush misleading the country to war?
 
tpahl said:
For following the rules you always accuse me of breaking, or for not rehashing the last year of news in regards to Bush misleading the country to war?

=Originally Posted by tpahl
I think it is not difficult to make just as strong of arguements that Bush too has been willing to use the war on terror for political reasons and endangered us by misrepresenting and lying about facts to convince the country to go to war.
The games they play are the same, they just play for different teams, and you seem to be rooting for the elephants instead of the donkeys.

You brought it up, but tell me to go read? Totally idiotic, you are well aware that I have read nearly all the topics posted, unlike someone like you that has come to spin his fav isolationist. Sorry, you are boring me.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
It's difficult to do it well and convincingly. To make that argument is to imply the war on terror isn't real. But it is real. Glitches in the intel system don't invalidate the fact that there is a globally organized radical muslim terrorist organization bent on destroying the western world. Why don't you quit pretending you're not a liberal? Or as a libertarian, tell me how ignoring the buildup of nukes in iran or syria or North Korea is a good idea.

I do not think it is that difficult to make the arguement. many already have. If you do not beleive fine, i doubt I will do a better job.


Again their policies and worldviews are still substantially different. You're being manipulated by antiamerican forces.

I am not being manipulated by anyone american or anti american. But my views most definitly are based on the ideals of the founding fathers of America.

Accusing people of being manipulated by anti american forces simply because the beleive different from you is what I would consider a flame.
 
Jimmyeatworld said:
If it's not the topic of this thread, why did YOU bring it up? If you are going to make accusations or post things to support your weak argument, you need to be prepared to back it up.

I did not bring it up. I mentioned it in the context of the actual topic of the thread. She wants me to completly leave the topic of the thread. I am not going to do that.

When the topic of a thread is based on bullshit, what is there left to do but get rude? :gross2:

The topic of the thread is the Bush campaign ignoring Badnarik. If you do not wish to discuss it, the only thing left for you to do is ignore the thread. Getting rude is not supposed to be an option.
 

Forum List

Back
Top