Many warbloggers and pro-war pundits like to perpetuate the myth that no one was against Clinton's military adventures abroad and that opposition to the coming war is really just an attack on Bush. For a small number of extremists on the Left that is surely true. But to paint everyone else with that same brush is intellectually bankrupt and totally ridiculous. For those who've been paying attention to the libertarian movement over the last several years, I don't have to mention that this argument is complete nonsense. Warbloggers, however, don't want to hear it. The myth is much sexier than the truth. They think they've "got" us with that one. A quick sampling of the record of libertarian criticism of Adminstration exploits past and present, however, proves them wrong:
- Libertarian Party (August 28, 1998) – If we hate terrorism, why does the U.S. keep arming and training terrorists?
- Libertarian Party (December 17, 1998) – Libertarian Party opposes military strike against Iraq
- Future of Freedom Foundation (June 1999) – A Bad Precedent
- Future of Freedom Foundation (June 1999) – Bill Clinton: World Cop
- Cato Institute (August 16, 1999) – "Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War Il and the Folly Of Intervention
- CarolMoore.net – Photos of Peace, Libertarian, Resistance and other events and demonstrations, mostly in Washington, D.C.
I could keep going and end up listing hundreds of links, but you get the point. Far too many warbloggers and pro-war pundits, however, don't care about the truth. It's all about perpetuating the myth and smearing those who disagree. The truth is, opposition to Administration warmongering isn't a Bush only phenomenon. And never has been. It is extremely difficult to take anyone seriously when they are repeating that tired old lie.
—-
This entry also posted at Stand Down.
The point of it is the scale. How many people protested in the streets of washington against Clinton use of force.
None that I remember. but htne again every one knew Clinton was just trying to distract the press.
Posted by Nick Chalko on February 25, 2003 12:53 PM
Also, is this argument typically aimed at the anti-war libertarians? I wouldn think it’s the left-liberals whom this is directed at. If I’m not mistaken, a true anti-war libertarian would have opposed the Bosnia/Kosovo interventions. But Chalko pretty much nails it above — nobody, left right, in-between or off-the-scale — protested Clinton’s deployments the same way.
Relax, anti-war libertarians; I disagree with you for much better reasons.
(Lest I come across to everybody as an unremitting warmonger I myself was very skeptical of these wars, on essentially anti-state grounds; I was particularly against the interventions in Somalia and Haiti on account of their lack of purpose. 9/11 just had a funny way of reminding me that wars abroad can be necessary.)
Posted by Armed Prophet on February 25, 2003 01:24 PM
I see Capt Chalko. I get it. Unless you are marching en masse down Pennsylvania Avenue, then you aren’t really truly opposing a war. That’s the deal. Right?
Posted by James Landrith on February 25, 2003 01:40 PM
Agian the point is of degree,
Why are so many more people Strongly Vocaly against the war with Iraq now, as a apposed to the number and volume of people opposed to Attacking Sadam in 1998.
Is Sadam is less dangerous than in 1998 or is it that a Republican is in the Whitehouse?
— Of course I speak for my self as a citizen and not for the USMC.
Posted by Nick Chalko on February 25, 2003 01:54 PM
Nick Chalko:
1) What is being proposed now is -very different- from operation desert fox. Invasion and lengthy occupation vs a three day tactical bombing campaign. That’s several orders of magnitude.
2) Saddam is likely less dangerous now than in 1998 due to continued degredation of facilities from sanctions and misc bombing in the interviening 5 years.
Posted by Outlandish Josh on February 25, 2003 02:03 PM
Josh,
I agree on point 1, the proposal today is very different that than the action of 1998. Bush’s plan will actually disarm Sadam, and increase the saftey of the United States, but at greater risk to life both US and Iraqi.
Point 2, While I do no think Sadam is less dangerous, regardless it is hard to argue that he is not a threat.
Can I restate you position as
The risk of leaving Sadam is power is better than facing the risk to US troops caused by an invasion
Posted by Nick Chalko on February 25, 2003 02:12 PM
“For a small number of extremists on the Left that is surely true”
Is it? Wouldn’t those guys have opposed Clinton’s war too? More likely to be non-extremists on the pseudo-left.
Posted by DavidByron on February 25, 2003 01:26 PM
Big difference between Clinton and Little Bush Man. Clinton was much more trustworthy.
LBM needs to learn how to keep his promises. There was an old saying in the West, I think, that a man is only worth his word. Bush and his word are both worthless.
Posted by Kirby Stone on February 25, 2003 01:52 PM
Dear Kirby Stone,
“Clinton was much more trustworthy.”
Wow! And this statement should be backed up with the fact that President Clinton SWORE AN OATH to protect the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, then SWORE ANOTHER OATH to tell the truth, and then LIED?
Perhaps you believe that President Clinton’s military actions were justified and President Bush’s are not. But could you really believe that President Clinton was trustworthy?!!!
Posted by Wendy on February 26, 2003 04:17 PM
I protested against the Clinton administration many times, but usually around economic and not military reasons. The anti-capitalist movement grew enormously under Clinton’s reign, and now the peace movement is growing under Bush.
Eventually these two movements will come together.
Posted by Douglas Lain on February 25, 2003 03:55 PM
Douglas, I’ll pass on joining forces with the anti-capitalist movement, but thanks. I like electricity, the internet and being able to pay my bills. Take away capitalism and we’re left with socialized everything, something I abhor.
As a military escort while in the Corps, I babysat Members of Congress and staffers on a trips to military bases and such worldwide. A trip that stands out was CODEL Frost, which took a House Subcommittee on a tour of several former Soviet satellites, including Albania, Slovakia, Hungary and the Czech Republic.
To say that the poverty, depressing lack of motivation among the locals used to state control and general ruined state of affairs that had been left by the world’s biggest experiment in anti-capitalism was depressing and infuriating would be a perverse understatement. The state of affairs in Albania alone was enough to drive a grown man to tears. Anti-capitalism? You’ve got to be joking.
Posted by James Landrith on February 25, 2003 06:15 PM
“To say that the poverty, depressing lack of motivation among the locals used to state control and general ruined state of affairs that had been left by the world’s biggest experiment in anti-capitalism was depressing and infuriating would be a perverse understatement.”
With the exception of the few Lenninist types involved the anti-capitalist movement never at any point supported state-socialism, and should one look to countries where state-corporatism was enforced by the IMF et al. you’ll find conditions similar to if not worse than what occurred under state socialism. They probably won’t like liberal-capitalist solutions much, either, but you can’t accuse them of supporting state socialism.
“For a small number of extremists on the Left that is surely true.”
If by “extremist” you mean Democrats this is accurate. The radical anti-authoritarian left’s reaction to Clinton’s interventions varied quite a bit, usually on the expectation that they’d be irresponsible.
The more authoritarian marxist groups were the only ones who rejected the interventions on staight ideological grounds in similar fashion as right-libertarian groups. Nobody came out harder against Bosnia and Kosovo than Ramsey Clark and Raimondo. Libertarians, much to their credit, didn’t go so far as to support Milosevic, but I find what little Raimondo has written about Timor (disparaging the withdrawal of support for atrocities as “interventionist”, or rather he doesn’t seem to acknowledge that support to begin with) as questionable.
Posted by buermann on February 25, 2003 10:10 PM
If anyone thinks that the things taking place now weren’t already deep in the planning they’re only fooling themselves…Clinton wanted to get Osama bin Laden back in the early years of his adminstration…
Posted by Mike Davis on February 25, 2003 06:04 PM
My hunch is that the upswing in protests against this war is the product of two big factors (and a few smaller ones).
Big factor one: starting with Seattle a few years ago, we have been living in a period of “protest chic” in the US and Europe. It seems like there are times, like the late 60s and early 80s,when protest marches and the like become interesting to a broader population than is otherwise the case. I have no idea why this happens, but I wonder if it has to do with population bubbles and the like.
Big factor two: there has been a relatively long and slow buildup to this war. The Bush/Blair team started publicizing their intent as long as a year ago, and this has allowed people to have time to come to a decision on the war. In Clinton’s wars, there was usually less time for consideration before the thing happened (and the lack of protest chic). In Gulf War One, there was a lack of protest chic AND a rather abrupt start to the action (Iraq’s invasion) AND a much clearer reason on the part of the US government.
Smaller factors include the inability of the Bush/Blair governments to convince enough people to support them, Iraq fatigue (to borrow Bush’s phrase, “we’ve seen this movie before”), and (no mistaking it) the generally smaller reservoir of benefit of the doubt many people (especially liberals and leftists) have for Bush than the did for his predecessors (even his dad).
Those are my guesses, anyway.
Of course, there are people who have been against EVERY military action (and more people who have been against most military actions). They (or we, since I’m one of the folks who have been against most) have just got more people on their/our side this time than they/we normally do.
Posted by Greg on February 25, 2003 08:34 PM
James:
The libertartian segment of the anti-war movement has been consistent. I have no problem with that, though I disagree with you. The thing that annoys a lot of Bush supporters is the rather obvious double-standard with a lot of the anti-war groups depending on what party is in the Oval Office. I live in the heart of anti-Bush country (SF county, Bush 16%, Nader8%), and there weren’t hundreds of thousands out protesting when Clinton bombed the crap out of Yugoslavia for 2-1/2months for a more questionable reason (a “genocide” that we have yet to uncover).
Posted by Steve on February 25, 2003 10:09 PM
Sure, some anti-war people would be pro-war if a Democrat were in office — just as some pro-war people would be anti-war under the same circumstances. Every tribe has its knee-jerk idiots. I’d like to think they aren’t representative of the whole.
For whatever it’s worth, though, I went to a protest outside the White House after one of Clinton’s bombing raids. It wasn’t a giant demonstration, but then, it wasn’t a giant intervention. Ac op lied to me, a foul-breathed Trotskyite tried to recruit me for his party, and a left-anarchist friend stood off to the side with a sign that said NO BLOOD FOR BLOW JOBS. What more does a vibrant anti-war movement need?
Posted by Jesse Walker on February 26, 2003 11:26 AM
What more does a vibrant anti-war movement need?
A clue, possibly? The fact that the people of Iraq are unanimous in their prayers for the war of liberation to come as quickly as possible would serve as a nice hint, you think?
Oh, but it’s really not about the people of Iraq, but the left joining hand in hand with the socialist like Byron trying to denounce Bush, all for their selfish reasons.
Look at the stars, or Sheryl Crow, she was oozing with patriotic pride when she performed for Hillary and the boys in Bosnia, now she dons a NO WAR T -Shirt. Shallow and contemptable morons are what the anti war zealots are. Right, Byron?
Posted by URnotmeRU on February 26, 2003 11:43 AM
“the people of Iraq are unanimous in their prayers”
I’ve yet to meet any people who are unanimous on anything. Please stop spreading the myth of unanimity. It doesn’t exist.
Posted by James Landrith on February 26, 2003 04:12 PM
“myth of unanimity”
People that have gone to Iraq to research Iraqi positions on war find more unanimity in apathy than in invasion. What Iraqis really want is a return to normalacy:
http://intl-crisis-group.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=837
Posted by buermann on February 28, 2003 12:08 AM