"The Most Distinctly Libertarian of the Libertarians"
Of the big five of the libertarian movement -- Von Mises, Hayek, Rand, Rothbard and Friedman -- who is your favorite?
Doherty: Murray Rothbard, and I’ll tell you why. Rothbard, in one way, was the most distinctly libertarian of the libertarians. He was influenced a lot by both Mises and Rand, not so much by Hayek and Friedman. He brought together Mises’ deep economist’s understanding of why government economic intervention tends to fail and Ayn Rand’s sort of natural rights-based philosophy that argued that it is morally wrong for government to do certain things, whether or not it worked better -- even though it didn’t work better.
Rothbard also took them to sort of the most colorful and radical extremes. He actually was a complete anarchist. Unlike Rand and Mises, he didn’t believe there was any role for government. He wrote so well and was so impassionedly in so many fields -- philosophy, economics and history -- and was so intimately involved at an organizational level with lots of great libertarian institutions, from the Cato Institute to the Institute for Humane Studies to the Foundation of Economic Education. He really had his hands in every aspect of the story, was such a colorful and fun writer, and was so bracing in his radicalism, that I found him the most fun to contemplate of all those figures.
Read more of the interview with Brian Doherty on his book "Radicals for Capitalism" here.
Comments (83)
Favorite Libertarian in history? He's not even on your list. Absolutely the Libertarian Political Movement Founder Dana Rohrabacher.
Second would be Goldwater. Third would be PJ O'Rourke.
You should revise your List. Murray Rothbard was hardly a "libertarian." He was more of an Anarchist, and a bit of a Leftwing Anarchist to boot.
I knew Murray well. He was a loveable little guy. Fantastic sense of humor.
Murray would tell you right off that he was an Anarchist and not really a libertarian.
Published: March 16, 2007 9:02 PM
1. Murray was a libertarian and died one.
2. Rohrabacher was a libertarian, but gave that up to be a war-loving neocon.
3. Goldwater was never a libertarian.
Published: March 16, 2007 9:07 PM
Eric Dondero, your credibility is shot when you credit Rudy Giuliani as being a great libertarian. Pack it up and go home.
Published: March 16, 2007 9:21 PM
Eric - anarcho-capitalism (the flavour of Rothbard's anarchism) is well-recognized branch of libertarianism.
In fact, this is the only completely self-consistent libertarian theory.
In my opnion Rothbard is the most important contributor to the libertarianism.
Published: March 16, 2007 10:05 PM
What happens when a libertarian stops fooling himself with self-contradictory arguments? He realizes that the only true libertarianism is anarchism. P.J. O'Rourke? He's very funny, but what libertarian could write "Give War A Chance?."
Published: March 16, 2007 10:18 PM
Well, O'Rourke used to be funny, but now he's not even that. Give War a Chance was the beginning of his decline, and his books since, while better at getting their facts right, are even less humorous.
Published: March 16, 2007 10:33 PM
Is this a joke? Rothbard, who wrote "Why Be a Libertarian?" wasn't a libertarian? The Libertarian Manifesto?
I have to assume that Eric has a very low reading comprehension is or has a learning disability.
Published: March 17, 2007 8:32 AM
Again, I knew Murray Rothbard. Murray was a friend of mine. A Libertarian? Murray was not. He'd tell you straight out that he was an Anarchist, and disliked Libertarians, particularly Libertarian Party Libertarians, whom he loathed later on in his years.
Oddly, Murray became rather Socially Conservative later in life. You all should read some of the last issues of the RRR (Rothbard-Rockwell Report).
Where Murray used to be an advocate for Prostitution legalization, Pro-Choice and such. He practically denounced these views in his last few years.
On Dana Rohrabacher, the poster above is DEAD WRONG! Dana started out as a libertarian, moved libertarian conservative for a few years under Reagan, but then swung back to hardcore libertarianism later, and most certainly in the last few years.
Dana has either tied or beaten Ron Paul on the Liberty Index which rates Congressman for libertarian beliefs in the last few years. Ditto for the Club for Growth Index.
Dana was THEE sponsor of our Libertarian Party bill to abolish Selective Service in Congress in the mid-1990s. Dana had famed Libertarian Party member Don Ernsberger as his Chief of Staff for many years. Dana's congressional staff is loaded with Libertarians.
Simply put Dana Rohrabacher is Mr. Libertarian. The only ones who come close to him are John Stossel, PJ O'Rourke, and maybe Neal Boortz.
As for me not being a "real libertarian" as some above imply; I've been called America's Greatest Libertarian Activist. (See my blog for some of these quotes at www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com). But here's a little taste of my Libertarian resume: Libertarian National Comm., Libertarian candidate for State House, Libertarian delegate to two LP National Conventions, Ron Paul's Travel Aide - Libertarian for President 1987/88, FL Chairman - Libertarian Republican Organizing Comm., Founder - Republican Liberty Caucus, 1st RLC National Chairman, Campaign Coordinator Ron Paul for President Expl. Comm. 1992, Campaign Coordinator Ron Paul for Congress 1996, Senior Aide US Congressman Ron Paul 1997-2003.
Published: March 17, 2007 9:04 AM
The correct libertarian position is Pro-War on Islamo-Fascism. PJ O'Rourke, like Jack Wheeler, Neal Boortz, Larry Elder, Dana Rohrabacher, and other True Libertarians support the War on Islamo-Fascism. The poser Lefty-Libertarian position is Surrender to Islamo-Fascism.
O'Rourke represents True Libertarianism quite well. Not poser Lefty-Libertarianism which pretends to represent the entire Libertarian movement.
Libertarians support legalizing drugs, prostitution, gambling, tolerance for gays, sexual freedom, no censorship on adult pornography, ect... These are all positions that Islamo-Fascists violently oppose.
Libertarian = Oppose Islamo-Fascism
Poser Leftist Libertarian = Surrender to Islamo-Fascism and let the Islamo-Fascists outlaw all civil liberties.
Published: March 17, 2007 9:11 AM
False dichtomy.
The true dichtomy.
Libertarian = Non interference. Defend ourselves as necessary on our own soil.
Neo-libertarian/neo-conservative = Interfereing policy, spread our forces thin world wide and bankrupt ourselves in the process.
Considering that both my economic and personal liberty indices are both 100%, I am hardly a lefty, rather I am a purist Libertarian.
BTW, a true pacifist CANNOT by definition be a Libertarian. You falsely equate non-interference with pacifism, which is a non sequitor.
Published: March 17, 2007 10:05 AM
So many people with such diverse views are claming to be libertarian that the term has lost its meaning.
Published: March 17, 2007 11:08 AM
A big L Libertarian is much closer to a neocon than to a true libertarian, as Eric Dondero's pro-war interventionism attests. Just to assume state large enough to carry out such interventionism -- i.e., an enormous military machine -- is enough to distinguish such people from true libertarians. But they're no different from Bush cabal neocons for not realizing that Islamic anti-Americanism is a direct result of decades of military intervention in the Middle East, as was 9/11.
Published: March 17, 2007 11:26 AM
Besides the obvious comparison with Nazi Germany, the pre-occupation of some in the U.S. with “Islamo-Fascism” is eerily reminiscent of the cold war opposition to the spread of Communism. In fighting that “evil menace,” politicians of both parties had no regrets about turning the U.S. domestically into more and more of an authoritarian state, in regards to both economic and civil liberties. Supposedly, the major reason we were fighting Communism in the first place was that it was an authoritarian if not totalitarian form of government and economic organization. The modern U.S. will always need some terrible foreign enemy so that support can be whipped up for the warfare part of the entitlement/warfare state.
Who are the fascists? America should also look at itself. The U.S. needs to remove every last troop from the soil of an Islamic country and to completely stop interfering in the internal affairs of Muslim countries before America can use the term fascism, without hypocrisy, in regards to segments of Islam. The West, including the U.S., has interfered in the internal affairs of Islamic countries for over 80 years, and I am not at all shocked by the violent reaction of a small minority of individuals in some of these countries. While I strongly disagree with certain elements of Islam as practiced by some of its adherents, these people should not be the subject of another crusade. Furthermore, America should have the honesty and integrity to admit that the major reason for our intervention into many of these countries has been to attempt to control their vast oil reserves.
How many Americans, especially neo-conservatives, would tolerate the stationing of foreign troops on U.S. soil? I am afraid that many Americans, perhaps best exemplified by the neocons, practice “do as I say but do not do as I do.” Or else they adhere to the non sequitur, and morally reprehensible and school yard bully principle that “might makes right.”
Published: March 17, 2007 11:35 AM
Why do you assume we need a big state apparatus to conduct a War on Terror? I favor widdling the State down as far as it can go, except Defense. With taxes drastically reduced more money would be available to pay soldiers and sailors a top notch salary and we'll be able to afford top notch equiptment, as well.
There's no inconsistency in having a strong Military and having a very limited government. That's a horrible false straw man argument which has been pushed by the Paleos for years. It's just plain wrong.
Without the Defense, we'd have big government Islamic-style. They'd be ruling our land faster than you could say "Allah Ahu-Akbar."
And if some Americans don't wish to support the War on Terror, some wish to be unPatriotic and let the others carry the load. Fine.
Just offer a tax check-off for Defense. Those who wish to opt out of funding Defense of America should be allowed to do so. So long, as those of us who assist in funding defense be given the right to publicly shame them as cowards, yellow bellies, and freeloaders.
Published: March 17, 2007 12:19 PM
So, Eric. Interesting ideas there. Hateful, statist, repulsive ideas, but interesting nonetheless.
Published: March 17, 2007 12:53 PM
Mr. Dondero,
ALL the State does is Defense. It defends us against all enemies, be they human, hunger, sickness, natural disasters, or anything else that is even remotely related to something just one person might consider to be bad.
P.S. We already have Big Government and no one I know cares which God(s) its members do or do not believe in.
Published: March 17, 2007 1:02 PM
Hmmmmnnn.
For all the neo-libs and neo-cons. If you believe so much in war, I have to question why you are sitting here at home. Your local recruiting station is not far. You can be ready for combat in four short months. Be a man and sign up for 11-B. If you truly believe your own rhetoric, than why not lay down your own life, rather than sitting on a computer letting other people do the dying for you.
Published: March 17, 2007 1:15 PM
>I favor widdling the State down as far as it can go, except Defense.
I have news for you: You're not a Libertarian
No more so than people who say they want a smaller state, except for welfare.
You're just a pro-state war monger who wants to use the public kitty for your pet project of killing Muslims.
Published: March 17, 2007 1:48 PM
Eric, it's "whittling," not "widdling." As in, everyone spent the day whittling down Eric's arguments to less than a nub of intellectual respectability.
Published: March 17, 2007 1:56 PM
Oh, I forgot a third option. Eric's a war socialist.
Published: March 17, 2007 2:23 PM
Really, the claims made by pro-war "libertarians" are absurd. These people aren't libertrians, they are absolute statists on foreign policy. Earth to interventionists: you must apply principles consistantly to both foreign and domestic policy. There can be no such thing as a libertarian order where nation building and pre-emptive war is viewed as a virtue.
To call Murray Rothbard a "leftist" and "not a Libertarian", and libertarians who actually apply libertarian principles to war and foreign policy, is ridiculous. These definitions are not based on a libertarian view of the political spectrum, but on a one-dimensional view of it that considers "rightist" to mean libertarian and anyone who disagrees with the right on something as being "the left".
As this site and Lew Rockwell have pointed out ad nauseum, resistance to war is not specifically "left-wing". To the contrary, it used to be quite popular in the "right-wing", and the left-wing in practise consists mostly of apologists for foreign interventionism. In either case, war is the offensive mass-destruction of person and property and is therefore immoral and in violation of every libertarian principle concievable.
People who believe that if we don't spend trillions of stolen dollars to invade people half across the world, our country will literally be taken over by Muslim theocrats, are living in a fantasy land created just for them by the likes of John Hagee. For such people to consider themselves "libertarian" is a joke, and for such people to go further and claim that the actual founders of the libertarian movement AREN'T libertarian is an even bigger joke.
Published: March 17, 2007 2:53 PM
I consider myself to be a libertarian and in favor of killing the islamists who want to kill us. That being said, I don't think we should have invaded Iraq, or done anything about their invasion of Kuwait. Saddam was only a threat to those around him, and as an American that doesn't include me. Immigration policy is likely to be a much better area for preventing terrorism than anything else though.
Published: March 17, 2007 5:16 PM
I hope the interview makes Raimondo think twice about his awful review in which he complains about how Doherty prefers Friedman to Rothbard. My thoughts are closer to the Austrian school when it comes to economics and the policies I advocate are quite extreme, but at least the hated "pragmatics" were able to accomplish some things. Raimondo's beloved "radicals" did not, though I bet it feels good to be so self-congratulatory over your purity and whatnot.
I haven't read any of Rand's books, but most of what I hear from her seems wacky. Philosophy is a waste of time, since there are really no objective "oughts" and the platonic essentialism in the subject blinds us to the reality of the world. Economists provide useful understanding of how things work, but when was the last time someone said to themselves "I need to hire a philosopher for this!". Rothbard can be entertaining but I think his interactions with Rand might have gotten him started with the self-delusion apparent in much of his writing.
Published: March 17, 2007 5:22 PM
TGGP,
Don't even make it an "us"-"them"-"Islam"-"whatever collective" issue at all. You're just throwing the Eric's a bone that need not be given.
It is simply libertarian, plain and simple, for anyone to defend themselves against any attacker/invader.
Published: March 17, 2007 6:01 PM
Since the state is “an entity which claims a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force,” the claim that you can reconcile a small government (the state) with big military is analogous with a claim that you can reconcile big power with small power. I guess big spending on the military never leads to a political corruption and never produce wars that will benefit those companies that are financing the major political parties. Yeah, right…
---------------------
If you think that neoconservatives in Bush’s administration are waging the war on “islamo-fascism,” you probably still think that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Unfortunately, many Americans don’t know that the greatest allies of our current administration are some of the worst “islamo-fascists” -- in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kosovo (where the NATO forces supervised the ethnic cleansing of Christians and the destruction of dozens of Byzantine-period churches and monasteries), and elsewhere.
People who think that war in Iraq was really about “islamo-fascism” of the secular Baath regime (which the USA installed there) – are probably wondering why the United States plans on building “anti-missile shield” in Poland and Czech Republic and why the NATO is trying to expand to the Republic of Georgia and further along the border of the largest (territory-wise) democratic country in the world – even though NATO’s raison d'être dismantled in the last century.
Ignorance is bliss.
Anyway, we got far away from our topic...
Published: March 18, 2007 4:21 AM
Saddam Hussein was only partially behind 9/11. Supportive behind the scenes, taking care of Zarcawi in a comfy hospital in Baghdad - having is Intelligence officers meet with Muhammed Attah in Prague twice, ect...
But he was most certainly fully behind the Oklahoma City Bombing. The US Congressional House Investigations Oversight Committee found gross negligence on the part of the FBI in following up leads to Islamic connections to the OKC Bombing. Of course, it was only a half day story on the MSM last December.
Read the Jayna Davis book; The Third Terrorist.
But then again, I'm dealing with Leftist Libertarians here. I don't expect any of you all to read anything that runs counter to your already established Blame America First/Saddam was a good guy/Al Qaeda is harmless Template.
Published: March 18, 2007 8:18 AM
Resistence to War is most certainly Left-wing. In fact, it's far Left-wing.
It equals Blame America First. There's nothing "Right-wing" about hatred for your own country.
And I dare say, there isn't a Veteran amongst you all here. Certainly Lew Rockwell is no Veteran.
More proof that you all just want to bash America and have no feelings of loyalty to this great country. Which is far, far Leftwing.
Don't go preaching to me about what is and what is not Libertarian.
I would remind you Sir, that the Founders of this beloved Libertarian Movement of ours were almost all Pro-War (on Communism at the time): Barry Goldwater, Milton Friedman, Frank Meyers, Ayn Rand, and most especially Dana Rohrabacher.
I've got 22 years of hardcore Libertarian Politcal Activism under my belt. I dare say I have more knowledge of Libertarian Movement history than all y'all Newbies combined.
And yes, I remember the 1980s, when it was entirely accepted for a Libertarian to be Pro-Defense. In fact, I was a member of the Libertarian Defense Caucus back then, headed up by Mike Dunn, Jack Wheeler, and Bob Poole.
They were in opposition to Rothbard/Raimondo's nutty Blame America First/Commit National Suicide/Surreder to all forces who Hate America, attitudes.
And I will also remind you all that Rothbard was dead wrong on fighting Communism.
Reagan proved right. It was our build up of the Military that bankrupted the Soviet Union, and eventually put them out of business.
Strength wins. Surrender leads to our Nation's destruction.
Published: March 18, 2007 8:26 AM
"Saddam Hussein was only partially behind 9/11. Supportive behind the scenes, taking care of Zarcawi in a comfy hospital in Baghdad - having is Intelligence officers meet with Muhammed Attah in Prague twice, ect...
But he was most certainly fully behind the Oklahoma City Bombing. The US Congressional House Investigations Oversight Committee found gross negligence on the part of the FBI in following up leads to Islamic connections to the OKC Bombing. Of course, it was only a half day story on the MSM last December.
"
You must be a Curveball libertarian. none of this stuff ever happened. timothy mcveigh was not in kahoots with saddam. nor did saddam have anything to do with al queda.
zarqawi was never in a baghdad hospital. the story was basd on an urban legend that he had a prostetic leg and saddam had got him a new one. he had both legs intact when they found him.
there was never any meeting with mohammed atta in prague. what would they have talked about? atta was traced back to Florida on that day via phone records post 9-11
Published: March 18, 2007 8:38 AM
Eric,
Proof that you are not a true libertarian is the simple fact that you cannot distinguish between a country and its government. That is, you stand with statists like Bill Clinton, who exposed the statist mentality with these words: “There's nothing patriotic about hating your government or pretending you can hate your government but love your country.”
I love my country. I hate its government.
Published: March 18, 2007 8:41 AM
I think this says it all as per mr dondero: (which is not even his real last name)
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/Dondero%20-%20Bush%20was%20right,%2005-03-03.htm
Published: March 18, 2007 8:45 AM
The US government can kill anyone it wants and has worldwide hegemony, and that's libertarian? Killing hundreds of thousands of people is, and occupying over 150 countries-now in wars of aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq-is libertarian?
Democracy sure is working only the way cancer works.
Published: March 18, 2007 8:58 AM
"Resistence to War is most certainly Left-wing. In fact, it's far Left-wing."
So Garet Garrett and the rest of the "Old Right" were actually "Left-wing," while Franklin "Stalin is a good Christian gentleman" Roosevelt and his Keynesian, central planning, welfare-state-building buddies were the true right-wingers?
"It was our build up of the Military that bankrupted the Soviet Union, and eventually put them out of business."
I thought the Soviet Union went out of business because economic calculation is impossible under socialism. I guess true libertarians don't really believe that communism doesn't work.
Thank you for enlightening me!
Published: March 18, 2007 10:15 AM
Published: March 18, 2007 10:39 AM
Over at LRC -- http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger120.html -- Jacob Hornberger exposes the ugly reality of Eric Dondero's mindless militarism:
"Therefore, those libertarians who continue to support this foreign policy of empire, militarism, and interventionism are faced with an inescapable moral and philosophical dilemma, perhaps the biggest of their lives: whether to continue advancing libertarianism or to continue supporting a pro-empire, interventionist foreign policy, knowing that such a policy means an unfree society."
Published: March 18, 2007 11:19 AM
God bless American relative prosperity and the fact that people in this country can afford not to care about the world around them. Out of "western world," only in this country could there be a market for people who could still claim that Al-Qaeda had a link with Baath regime. Actually, their only link was that both of these were supported by the U.S. government in 1980s.
As I said, if the real enemy was "islamo-fasism" - American greatest allies would not have been some of the worst "islamo-fascists" and human-rights violators on the face of this planet. The neoconservatives are preparing for their real enemy in places like Kosovo and Republic of Georgia...
Regards.
Published: March 18, 2007 12:19 PM
When Mr. Dondero cited Neal Bortz as a true libertarian that was all that I needed to see.
Bortz's argument in the Terri Schiavo case was that he could tell from photographs that Terri's soul was floating just above her body, waiting for her to die so that it could go to heaven. Therefore, she should have the feeding tube removed. Seriously.
I guess that's one way of being "principled". . .
Notice how Mr. Dondero uses tags, categories, and plain ad hominem attacks in lieu of reasoning with us. Take, me, for example: instead of being someone who is against American foreign intervention -- and the conversation that this implies -- I'm merely a "lefty", "blame America first" type who is obviously "liberal" and not a true libertarian.
Published: March 18, 2007 1:53 PM
Eric, you are deluded. When you go on about Oklahomo City conspiracy theories you sound like the nuttiest lewrockwell.com and anti-war.com have to offer.
The U.S government never sponsored al Qaeda either. You can read in al Zawahiri's "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner", they got all their support from donations from other Muslims (Saudi Arabia promised to match U.S funding, but I am not sure if that's where Maktab al-Khadamat got its money). Saddam's Baath regime was not U.S aligned either. It was a Soviet client state, that's why during the Iran-Iraq war they had all the Soviet equipment and Iran (previously a U.S client state) fought them with American equipment. Iraq did receive a little support from the U.S, but if you look here you'll see it was a tiny proportion dwarfed by many other countries. The only reason the U.S was every friendly toward Saddam's regime was because of Iran, and the U.S wasn't even exclusively anti-Iran during that period, as shown by the Iran-Contra deals.
I think Rothbard had a very wrong-headed view of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. At the same time, many of the cold warriors believed a lot of incorrect things and promoted many bad policies. Just as I can now believe global warming is real and that mankind contributes to it without believing there will be a desirable political solution, I can also believe that threats do exist while not being willing to hand over lots of money and power to the government under the assumption that they will use it wisely.
Published: March 18, 2007 2:02 PM
Nice comments from Daniel Coleman, I completely agree. It's funny how arguments from emotion are so effective for the human psyche. They also happen to be irrational.
From Mr. Dondero:
"It equals Blame America First. There's nothing "Right-wing" about hatred for your own country."
Try replacing "country" with "state" in the above passage. Does loving your "country" mean that you have to love imperialism?
"And I dare say, there isn't a Veteran amongst you all here. Certainly Lew Rockwell is no Veteran."
(Yawn) Irrelevant. Also untrue, if what I've read about some of the other bloggers here is true.
"More proof that you all just want to bash America and have no feelings of loyalty to this great country. Which is far, far Leftwing."
It's easier to categorically reject someone else's argument when you can place them into a little box. My path to libertarian thought basically grew from a rejection of party lines, from an unwillingness to swallow the nonsense along with the truth. Rothbard truly nailed it when he said that both "right" and "left" lack consistency in their positions.
By the way, I suspect that if, as you say, Rothbard described himself as an anarchist rather than a libertarian, he did so in an attempt to distance himself from the Libertarian Party.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard83.html
Published: March 18, 2007 3:21 PM
Maybe we'll all be able to agree again once we find a final solution to this dangerous muslim problem...
Published: March 18, 2007 4:20 PM
I support a strong defense against anyone that threatens my life and property, but as a good libertarian I do not trust any government to provide that defense. Does that make me a leftist-libertarian? No leftist I know would take this stance on government, and few leftists would be strong on defense.
Published: March 18, 2007 5:08 PM
TGGP,
Eric is indeed funny when he blames Iraq for Timothy McVeigh's bombing in Oklahoma City, but I disagree with the rest of your posting.
It was the Saudi ambassador to the United States, His Royal Highness Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, who stated that United States government sponsored Osama Bin Laden's movement in Afghanistan. Right after 9-11 on Lary King's show, he actually said that he met Osama Bin Laden only once: when Osama asked him to thank the U.S. administration for all the financial support they provided for their jihad.
No offense to you, but I that believe prince Bandar is not lying, and nobody really denied the U.S. support of Bin Laden (neoconservatives actually try to justify that by saying they would always pick Osama as a lesser evil).
As far as Saddam goes, all I said is that the only thing that links him to Al-Qaeda is the U.S. support during 1980s (regardless of its Soviet-produced arsenal). http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq24.pdf Is there any other factual link, even on Wikipedia? :)
Published: March 18, 2007 7:46 PM
DW> Eric, Proof that you are not a true libertarian is the simple fact that you cannot distinguish between a country and its government.
Well I sort of thought it was his consistant disconnect from reality.
I thought the only wars leftists didn't like were the one's they didn't start. No?
DW> I love my country. I hate its government.
I love american society/culture to the extent it values liberty and individualism, and I am comfortable in that culture. The government is counter to those values.
---------
On the topic, I liked Hayek a lot, for whatever his weaknesses were. (Rothbard and Mises help me sort those out.) Hayek's explanation of cultural evolution was excellent -- unmatched by Mises or Rothbard, for what I've seen so far.
Published: March 18, 2007 8:28 PM
Hoo boy.
To witness Eric regale us with his curriculum vitae and fleeting brushes with libertarian luminaries is to recollect the jockeying for position in the Soviet Communist Party hierarchy or the NSDAP flunkies boasting of the number of their party membership cards and/or participation in the putsch. In other words, empty grandstanding in the best collectivist tradition. I say empty because it seems to suffice for the bulk of his arguments.
That portion of his arguments that don't slide neatly into that mode of presentation don't hold much muster either.
His leap to the defense of the Reagan Administration's military budgets on the grounds that they brought an end to the Soviet Union and the Cold War are laughable; the Soviet Union would arguably never have emerged from any decade of its existence intact were it not for capital and technical transfers from Western governments to Moscow. If Washington could have cut the cord on their aid packages, bail-outs, and other props at the expense of the American taxpayer and the foreign importer the Soviets would have foundered from the get-go and from there at every stage of the Soviet lifespan. Ah, but with the demise of the Soviets would go the convenient justification for power-grabs at home in the name of defending the homeland from an external enemy. And so...
And in the same manner, Eric and other apologists for the imperial state have inserted a phantom Islamic menace in what was the Soviet Union mad-lib, thus keeping the entire sordid machine running smoothly.
And this is the status quo Mr. America's #1 Libertarian Activist is desperate to preserve. Eric, your words bely your C.V. and expose you as the "poser" in these parts.
Published: March 18, 2007 10:55 PM
Sasha, why did you even bother with your link? The memo said it was "possible" that it was a U.S firm rather than some other Western firm. There were plenty of Western countries that contributed more to Iraq than the U.S, so that doesn't say much. Then they said they would discuss what they might do to assist Iraq, and I already noted that we did assist Iraq in its war with Iran but our support was of relatively small magnitude.
I don't care what the Saudi prince says on Larry King. "Knights Under the Prophet's Banner" and the statements of all the people who we know were actually involved in that part of the Afghan jihad trump it.
Published: March 19, 2007 1:32 AM
TGGP,
On one hand we have a testimony of a Saudi prince, a clause ally of America who earned a nickname Bandar Bush, whose claims of the U.S.A. support of Al-Qaeda nobody in the U.S. administration even dared to deny.
On the other hand - you have statements of terrorists, who try to wash themselves of any American support, because that would morally equate them to Israel...
And you actually state that you only base your opinion on statements of terrorists!?! Eric Dondero now seems reasonable after your posting.
PS
I placed a link about Iraq just so that people don't think that the United States was not aware of what Baath regime was actually doing during 1980s when the U.S.A. supported it. Like I said, the U.S. support of terrorism is the only thing that links Baath Socialist Party to Al-Qaeda.
Published: March 19, 2007 2:04 AM
Oh come on guys! Dondero is just a collectivist punk- not even worth the effort to engage in a debate with, as he completely avoids dealing with anything of substance (like principle or serious ideas).
There was a saying: The intelligent discuss ideas, the ordinary discuss local happenings, while the small-minded gossip about other people. Dondero is a gossip and a name dropper. Aside from that, what's he actually contributed?
He writes: "I've been called America's Greatest Libertarian Activist."
Really?
Well until now I'd never heard of him (although I had come across some really obscure Libertarians such as Hoppe, Reisman, Rockwell, Paul, Wilder, etc. etc. etc.- all unknowns, but never once had I heard of the Great Dondero, the Greatest Libertarian Activist of America- goodness gracious). Luckily he's promoted his resume so we may all bask in his emminence and greatness. ALL HAIL!
On a more serious note, Mark Brabson gets it right. His post about Libertarian ideals is important.
Sione,
Polynesia's Libertarian,
Greatest of the Vatu,
Luckier than Oz,
Better than the collectivists,
More important than Dondero hissself!
Published: March 19, 2007 5:50 AM
Favorite libertarian? To me there's only one answer to that and it's good ole' Milton Friedman. First because he was one the very very few libertarians that was not afraid to get his hands dirty. Second because he's the only libertarian that's known outside the libertarian clique. In Europe, where I live, no-one has ever heard of Murray Rothbard. No-one has ever heard of von Mises or Hayek, the only economics that is taught here is Keynesian economics. No-one has ever heard of Ayn Rand, her books are very hard to come by. But Friedman we have heard of, and though he is very much criticised for his free-market views it is his views on monetary politics that has kept the Euro a strong currency and inflation low against all odds. Offcourse I oppose to a collectivist fiat-money like the Euro is. But I'm glad that, since we have it anyway, at least the ECB is following Friedman's indications in stead of letting the money presses go wild.
I know you hardcore libertarians and anarchists think of Friedman as a quasi-collectivist but that's only you are lucky enough to be brought up in a tradition of liberty. In Europe, where we are building our own Soviet-Union these days, only about a decade after we saw the orginal one crumble to pieces, the work of Milton Friedman is still a breath of fresh air. And not only that, bringing up his views is the only way to engage the socialists into a serious discussion about big government, since it's the only libertarian view they've ever heard of.
Published: March 19, 2007 6:51 AM
Favorite libertarian? To me there's only one answer to that and it's good ole' Milton Friedman. First because he was one the very very few libertarians that was not afraid to get his hands dirty. Second because he's the only libertarian that's known outside the libertarian clique. In Europe, where I live, no-one has ever heard of Murray Rothbard. No-one has ever heard of von Mises or Hayek, the only economics that is taught here is Keynesian economics. No-one has ever heard of Ayn Rand, her books are very hard to come by. But Friedman we have heard of, and though he is very much criticised for his free-market views it is his views on monetary politics that has kept the Euro a strong currency and inflation low against all odds. Ofcourse I oppose to a collectivist fiat-money like the Euro is. But I'm glad that, since we have it anyway, at least the ECB is following Friedman's indications in stead of letting the money presses go wild.
I know you hardcore libertarians and anarchists think of Friedman as a quasi-collectivist but that's only you are lucky enough to be brought up in a tradition of liberty. In Europe, where we are building our own Soviet-Union these days, only about a decade after we saw the orginal one crumble to pieces, the work of Milton Friedman is still a breath of fresh air. And not only that, bringing up his views is the only way to engage the socialists into a serious discussion about big government, since it's the only libertarian view they've ever heard of.
Published: March 19, 2007 6:52 AM
Sionne,
I'll refer you to my website Page 5 "Comments/Links" for a list of articles written about me and my activism from last year, most specifically in fighting Liberal efforst to stop us petitioners for Property Rights in Montana, Oregon, Colorado and Missouri. The articles appeared in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, Christian Science Monitor, LA Times, Boise Weekly, Missoula Weekly, High Country News and statewide press throughout Montana.
Just last week the Manchester Union Leader did a write up on my national radio show "Libertarian Politics Live." I'll post that link to the list shortly, so that you may further educate yourself as to who I am and the massive contributions I've made to the Libertarian movement over the past 22 years.
Oh, and if you're interested, there's also a great many quotes from prominent Libertarians as to my activism over at my blog at www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com, like this one for instance:
"I'll take one effective Libertarian activist like Eric Dondero, over 100 on-line Computer so-called activists any day of the week." -- Chuck Moulton, Vice-Chairman, Libertarian Party
Published: March 19, 2007 9:27 AM
Quick counter-responses:
Firstly, I neglected to include the url for the articles written about me in major American newspapers last year - www.mainstreamlibertarian.com
Secondly, one poster above is actually correct. Yes, Murray Rothbard did eschew the term Libertarian and frequently called himself an Anarchist to mostly separate himself from the Libertarian Party. But that doesn't change the fundamental point: He called himself an Anarchist, not a "Libertarian." Which to me indicates that he's not a Movement Libertarian Activist, and is not deserving of the same spot on the pedestal as say a Dana Rohrabacher, John Stossel, Neal Boortz or a PJ O'Rourke, all of whom call themselves "libertarians."
Thirdly, for those who say that I have to separate the words "country" from "government" I'd respond, you all are not Libertarians but rather Anarchists.
If you believe in no government, i.e. no Military, no Judicial system, no Police Force, no Border Patrol, no National Monuments, Museums or Parks, than you are an Anarchist, most certainly NOT a Libertarian.
And you do severe damage to our beloved Libertarian movement by misrepresenting yourselves as "Libertarians."
Kindly cease and desist.
Published: March 19, 2007 9:37 AM
Eric, are you seriously asserting that "the state is the people and the people are the state" is a core position of libertarianism?
Wow! Do you guys provide goosestepping lessons too?
Published: March 19, 2007 10:16 AM
The problem between anarchism and minarchism is deeper than rhetoric.
Usually people might say, "libertarians are a diverse group that even argue amongst themselves" and stuff and this is portrayed as good.
Rand was a radical and didn't play this "lets comprimise and get together and call ourselves with one name". Although she was closer to libertarianism than Rothbard.
She would have endorsed everthing Mr Dondero said. But wouldnt be called a libertarian.
Rothbard was a radical to but, I must admit Mr Dondero is right, wasn't a libertarian if libertarian means the same thing what used to be clasical liberal.
I am an anarchist and I believe people who call themselves libertarian over there in the US are statist who want to steal property. Maybe not as much as other statist but never the less. Theft is theft, and there is no middle ground or there cant be a comprimise I dont thik.
Rand was right in saying when food and poison is comprimised death is the winner. She just was to stubborn to take logical deductions to where it goes, otherwise she would have been a great anarchist.
Published: March 19, 2007 10:59 AM
Eric,
I think that someone with very hands-on experience in the matter summed it up rather nicely, making it clear why anarchist (however much I dislike the use of it in this context) is just another word for libertarian:
"It is nonsense to make any pretense of reconciling the State and liberty." -- Vladimir Lenin
Published: March 19, 2007 1:15 PM
TGGP- who do you think gave the mujahadeen those stinger missiles? lithuania?
eric- I don't see your libertarian activism or service to the libertarian party as proof of libertarianism, which is based on principle not accumulated credit.
and there are ways to have basic services that aren't run by the state. courts, roads, and police can be funded privately. I read that in rothbards "society without a state" in....the Libertarian reader!
also, if you don't mind me asking, why do you not use the jewish part of your last name? Is it because the hyphenation thing is too cumbersome?
Published: March 19, 2007 1:37 PM
Perhaps on an operational level, the litmus test for who ought or ought not to be considered a libertarian is that person's fundamental orientation toward the state. Are you consistently wary of giving power to the State, even under circumstances where it may even seem justifiable? Or do you somehow identify with the State, and trust those in power to exercise it judiciously, at least when the "right people" have been elected?
As usual, Rothbard (the alleged non-libertarian) said it best.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html
Published: March 19, 2007 1:43 PM
So national monuments, museums and parks are a part of the libertarian program now?
Published: March 19, 2007 1:54 PM
I started being a libertarian after reading Friedman and Rand, was active in the Libertarian Party (up to state chair and a couple of runs for office) and eventually came to realize that the non-aggression principle logically leads to anarcho-capitalism. If the market can handle education, health care, etc., then why can't it handle rights-protection? In one sense, at least, the minarchists and anarchists aren't all that different. We are both heading in the same direction.
But we must be consistent. The non-aggression principle should be applied to all people unilaterally, whether they are American citizens or not. The war in Iraq was unjustified, and the appropriate response would have been going after the terrorists qua terrorists, not going after a country, a religion, or starting a broad, vague War on Terror. When you cross the line and go beyond defensive or retaliatory force, you become an aggressor, an initiator of force. Weakness is in not admitting when you've made a mistake and in not trying to correct the mistake. Bush is weak, not strong, and hides behind America's military might.
As for politicalactivity, while I don't want to put down the efforts by the LP, I've come to realize that politics is a very reactive system, not pro-active, and any changes in politics are going to be far more effective if they reflect changes in the culture of our society. I would say that political activity is a necessary but insufficient cause of change if we're to reach a free, libertarian society. The libertarian movement needs to have a broader, socio-cultural impact if we're ever going to succeed.
Published: March 19, 2007 1:55 PM
Eric: "If you believe in no government, i.e. no Military, no Judicial system, no Police Force, no Border Patrol, no National Monuments, Museums or Parks, than you are an Anarchist, most certainly NOT a Libertarian."
No. You don’t get it.
A libertarian recognizes principles first, then application of principles.
If YOU can’t conceive how a certain function would be provided in the absence of a coercive state and therefore you advocate a role for the state in violation of principle, that would make you less—I repeat, LESS—libertarian than one who applies the principles consistently and envisions that said function is either unnecessary or could be provided volulntarily.
It is you who is trying to be the “king of libertarians” if, through your tortured logic, you try to change the definition to make the former the “true” libertarian position, and the latter something else philosophically on the fringes outside of libertarianism.
Published: March 19, 2007 3:20 PM
mujahideen != Maktab al-Khadamat. All of the latter are the subset of the former but the former is not the latter. Verstehen Sie?
It's not just MAK members that say this. The CIA and ISI members that were involved say the same thing. The key thing linking people who allege that America was supporting the MAK is that they were not in a position to actually know what happened. Getting support from infidels isn't always considered a bad thing either, that's why so many muslim countries were client states of the Soviet Union. The actual Afghan mujahideen didn't have a problem recognizing that they got support from Americans (nor did the MAK denounce them for that), it made sense to do so. Osama was independently wealthy (so he didn't need us much) and was not a major factor in the Afghan jihad (so we didn't need him much).
Published: March 19, 2007 4:18 PM
I'm confused reeding those credentials. Mr. Dondero seems to be so close to Ron Paul. I thought Paul was against military intervention in Irak Iran and Palestine. Why to use those credentials then?
Published: March 19, 2007 4:44 PM
TGGP,
You say: "The key thing linking people who allege that America was supporting the MAK is that they were not in a position to actually know what happened."
But them you say: "The actual Afghan mujahideen didn't have a problem recognizing that they got support from Americans (nor did the MAK denounce them for that), it made sense to do so."
So which one is it? Do you finally admit something that nobody was hiding: that U.S.A. was supporting mujahidin movement in Afghanistan, whose integral part was Bin Laden?
Again, no offense to you, but no one really denied Prince Bandar's claims. There was no logical reason how could the U.S.A. discriminate against Osama's fighters, who were a part of MAK.
Regards.
Published: March 19, 2007 4:57 PM
Keeping in mind that dirty socialists stole the term "liberal," is it a stretch to suggest that other dirty socialists now are pretending to be the only true "libertarians?"
Published: March 19, 2007 11:19 PM
Actually, I think that the adoption of the term "libertarian" by classic liberals was their retaliation for the hijacking of the term "liberal" by the left. The first known use of a term that has been translated as "libertarian," in a political sense, was by anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque who used the French term "libertaire" in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857. The term is still commonly used in Europe to designate collectivist anarchists (one anarchist faction in Spanish civil war was called libertarian).
Nevertheless, it makes sense for people like Rothbard to call themselves libertarians, since their version of anarchism consistently advocates the individual freedom and autonomy.
Published: March 20, 2007 2:31 AM
A man that to 100 percent supported a private property ethic was, naturally, also a 100 percent libertarian and anarchist. Who am I writing about? Naturally, Murray Rothbard.
Anyone that do not to a 100 percent comply with a private property ethic is something less than a fully libertarian. That is quite obvious.
Milton Friedman has extremely effectively influenced the world, but I would hardly call him a libertarian. I would classify him as a free market conservative. Hayek has also influenced the world, but to a lesser degree. He was a free market conservative too.
Mises and Ayn Rand, though, I would classify as libertarians.
I think we have a new star on the scene and that is Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I, also, think Murray Rothbard would have agreed with me.
Personally, I think Ayn Rand was a little weird. Intellectually she could not compete with the other guys, especially not with Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe and Hayek.
Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe are the true masterminds.
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden
Published: March 20, 2007 7:44 AM
barry goldwater could be considered an anarchist
"I come to washington not to make laws, but to repeal them!"
Published: March 20, 2007 12:53 PM
Bin Laden was not "an integral part" of the mujahideen. He was not just "part" of MAK either, him and Abdullah Azzam were the founders of it. And the U.S government has denied supporting the "Afghan Arabs" (which would include Bin Laden, Azzam and the MAK). So you are wrong on the simple evident facts of whether or not there is denial, and the people who are asserting that it never happened were actually in a position to know while the people who assert that it did universally were not in such a position.
Published: March 20, 2007 2:56 PM
This may not be particularly relevant, but the best piece I've read on Afghanistan and the Taliban I've read is "Who is Responsible for the Taliban?"
Published: March 20, 2007 3:49 PM
Osama was a mujahidin (by any definition of that word) and he could not fight his own war in a foreign country. Even according to international law, he was a part of a side in conflict that fought against Soviets and Afghan Communists.
As far as your DOS link goes - it only repeats statements of terrorist and no official denial of U.S. officials who could be involved in those actions.
As far as your other links goes - you may find the counterclaims all over internet.
Robin Cook, former leader of the British House of Commons and Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, wrote in The Guardian on Friday, July 8, 2005:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html
“ Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."
---
Anyway -- you are (at best) trying to prove that not even U.S.A. links Osama and Saddam : )
Published: March 20, 2007 4:11 PM
Bjorn, Goeden Dag,
How can one be a "Conservative" if one is Pro-Choice?
This has always boggled my mind. All these Paleos sit there and accuse me and other Pro-Defense Libertarians of being "NeoCons."
If I attended a NeoCon meeting as a Pro-Choicer/Pro-Sexual Tolerance guy, NeoCons like Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Bill Bennett, Pat Robertson, et.al would skin me alive. Not too mention my Pro-Drug Legalization stance. That would send Mr. NeoCon himself -- Bill Bennett -- into the stratosphere.
Enlighten me please.
Tak
Published: March 20, 2007 8:54 PM
Eric Dondero, God dag!
I do not know about you but I guess that there is a great difference between a neo conservative and a free market conservative.
Apart from the definition that a truly libertarian is a guy that to a 100 percent comply with a 100 percent private property ethic, political labelling is in no sense absolute.
I mean, for example, a socialist could want the monetary system of a nation converted into a gold standard.
Hälsningar (Regards)
Björn
From the land of social democrats, welfare state, big government, envy, equality, woman’s liberation, high taxes, regulations etc
http://www.answers.com/sweden?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3
http://www.answers.com/g%C3%B6teborg?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3
Published: March 21, 2007 3:02 AM
Robin Cook doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. He had no involvement in the Afghan Jihad and is just talking out of his ass. Paul Bergen called him on his idiocy here, although Bergen has only interviewed bin Laden and is thus not as definitive a source as the people actually involved in the Afghan Jihad (none of whom support your theory).
The DOS page does serve as a denial. It is the official position of the U.S government. It contains denials from C.I.A agents who actually carried out operations that are alleged to have involved Bin Laden. Give me someone who was in a position to know what happened, as these C.I.A and MAK people were, who claims there was any connection. Then I will take you seriously. Until then you have nothing.
I don't think we should have invaded Iraq. I am not defending the invasion, I am refuting a cock and bull story. Was there any connection between Saddam and bin Laden? "Connection" is a very vague term. There was some communication between the two, but it never amounted to much. Saddam really only supported regional terrorists that could support his interests against his neighbors. He didn't want any involvement with the "Worldwide Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders", which had been al Qaeda's focus since the assassination of Abdullah Azzam.
Published: March 21, 2007 1:25 PM
"And I dare say, there isn't a Veteran amongst you all here."
"More proof that you all just want to bash America and have no feelings of loyalty to this great country."
I served seven years in the U.S. Navy. Honorably discharged six months ago. I met and know people still serving in the Middle East.
Most of us were defrauded into service, subjected to jingoish brainwashing, and turned into thugs and thieves. Your great country can spin on it.
Published: March 21, 2007 1:53 PM
"So Garet Garrett and the rest of the "Old Right" were actually "Left-wing," while Franklin "Stalin is a good Christian gentleman" Roosevelt and his Keynesian, central planning, welfare-state-building buddies were the true right-wingers?"
Actually, I'd say most of the Old Right were really from the left — Nock the culturally leftie Georgist, Mencken the anti-authoritarian, Flynn the progressive Democrat — and FDR was a fascist, yes.
Published: March 21, 2007 1:58 PM
Dondero: "Again, I knew Murray Rothbard. Murray was a friend of mine. A Libertarian? Murray was not. He'd tell you straight out that he was an Anarchist, and disliked Libertarians, particularly Libertarian Party Libertarians, whom he loathed later on in his years."
Dondero is such an activist he cannot help but think "libertarian" means "member of the Libertarian Party". First, the LP contians some anarchists. Second, Rothbard wrote For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. So to think he would not say he was a libertarian is just asinine and ignorant. To imply anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-libertarian is not libertarian is just a confusion; it is a type of libertarian. Dondero is himself not even a libertarian, but just a mainstream neo-con.
Published: March 21, 2007 1:58 PM
"If I attended a NeoCon meeting as a Pro-Choicer/Pro-Sexual Tolerance guy, NeoCons like Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Bill Bennett, Pat Robertson, et.al would skin me alive. Not too mention my Pro-Drug Legalization stance. That would send Mr. NeoCon himself -- Bill Bennett -- into the stratosphere."
Pat Robertson is not really a neocon.
Plenty of neocons are pro-choice and decent on the drug war, actually. They differ on domestic policy and don't care much about it. Their main issue is promoting war.
Published: March 21, 2007 2:06 PM
Eric: “I knew Murray well.”
Apparently you didn’t know him well if you believe you are somehow more libertarian than he was. You missed something: Go back to his WRITINGS.
I believe Eric Dondero is a sincere and passionate advocate with good intentions, but who unfortunately lacks the intellectual equipment (and probably the patience) to appreciate the penetrating clarity and profound depth of Rothbard’s thought.
This is why Dondero, instead of recognizing Rothbard for the towering libertarian figure he was, (or at least trying to mount a convincing argument why he was not a libertarian), instead tries to pull him down to his level, claiming familiarity—“I knew Murray well”— making subtle put downs—“He was a loveable little guy”—thus weakly attempting to minimize him.
It’s no surprise that Dondero uses such tactics since—when he must maintain civility in such a distinguished forum as this and may not yell and flail about—it becomes apparent how inadequate his tortured semantical arguments are.
His deficiency in critical thinking naturally leads to all sorts of absurd and backward conclusions, such as believing killing innocent people or “kicking the s*** out of flag burners” is a libertarian position, while everyone else’s positions are not.
Published: March 21, 2007 5:40 PM
TGGP,
Your Department of State link used the statements from terrorists, simply to fill in the blanks all the fluff.
Let me remind you, Robin Cook said: “Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.“
To which the former CIA official Milt Bearden responds: "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so… So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading.”
In other words - he is not denying Cook’s statement, but just dancing around the issue.
By the way, when he mentions arming, he tries to unload some of the blame: “Bearden says the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK were "major players" in the effort to aid the Afghans.”
That really stinks.
By the way -- who is your source of information that “infidel dictator” (as Salafi call him) Saddam was in touch with Osama? The same agency that claimed that he had WMDs? Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk….
Published: March 21, 2007 10:04 PM
I didn't want to read what terrorist side had to say until now, but Abdullah Anas:
"If you say there was a relationship in the sense that the CIA used to meet with Arabs, discuss with them, prepare plans with them, and to fight with them -- it never happened."
Opa!
So he says there was not that kind of relationship ("in a sense")... too bad he didn't say what kind of relationship it was (arms delivered on parachutes, logistics, indirect directives via Afghans?).
Give us more links like this TGGP! :)
Published: March 21, 2007 10:19 PM
Bearden was not responding to Cook. He made his statement before Cook made his.
If you think that al Qaeda using disparaging names means they didn't get along with a regime, you should read the Harmony Documents and what is said in there about the Taliban. They have an elitist sensibility, but they realize beggars can't be choosers. They didn't enter into a working relationship with Saddam Hussein because it wasn't useful for them to do so. I don't remember the places where I read about this, but it's not a very significant point.
You are reading nothing but denials from everyone involved, but to you it comes off as an admission. That is because it is what you want to hear. There is no evidence for any relationship WHATSOEVER between the US government and MAK. We didn't have any files on Osama until the 90s. It is not even known if Osama used American arms, though if in fact he did it would not be terribly surprising as the Afghans we armed sold their armaments far and wide.
I do not feel like looking for more links for you. What I want from you is ONE statement from someone INVOLVED in the Afghan Jihad that says that there was a relationship between the US and MAK. Not a denial that you find insufficient, and not someone commenting on it but with no involvement. I do not know of any such statement.
Published: March 22, 2007 1:17 PM
TGGP,
I know that Bearden was not responding to Cook's statement -- that was my whole point. He danced around real issues, just like you do when I asked you to support your claim that Saddam had any connections with Al-Qaeda.
Plus, the statement of Abdullah Anas actually does not deny that there was some kind of relationship between the U.S.A. and "Afghan Arabs" -- he just denies that it was as cozy as some people assume. It’s a shame you don’t want provide more links like that – but I understand that you don’t want to provide more evidence of cooperation between Al-Qaeda and CIA. Anyway, you did enough and I thank you.
Published: March 22, 2007 1:26 PM
I know that Bearden was not responding to Cook's statement -- that was my whole point. Quit yanking my chain. To which the former CIA official Milt Bearden responds So why the heck did you write that? Your posts strike me as very intellectually dishonest.
Bearden is not "dancing around" anything. He is giving an account of his activities. He recruited and trained Afghans. That was his job. He did not do the same for Arabs. That is it. He has no need to respond to anything because there is no evidence of a CIA-bin Laden connection.
I am not "dancing around" the Saddam-al Qaeda issue. I think it is very minor and am willing to concede whatever point you want to make about them, unless you were claiming that they actually fought against him (bin Laden offered to do so before the Gulf War but was rebuffed by the Saudi royal family, which marked his split from that regime).
Published: March 22, 2007 6:20 PM
TGGP,
The fact remains: I didn't see anyone denying what Cook said. You said that CIA denied those claims -- but they didn't.
As far as issue of Saddam and Al-Qaeda, I joked that U.S. aid is the only thing linking them -- just because Eric Dondero acused Saddam Hussein that he was partially behind 9/11, hallucinating about those shameful lies about Atta in Prague and Zarqawi in Baghdad (with a prosthetic leg). That was the context.
Published: March 22, 2007 10:47 PM
I used to edit American Defense for the Caucus. Before that, I wrote an Ayn Rand obituary exposing the logical fallacy behind anarchism. It is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Does anyone remember? Cheerfully,
Published: April 30, 2007 10:03 PM