Clinton, Johnson, and media hypocrisy

The media's hypocrisy on Gary Johnson - CNN.com - Matt Welch:

September 30, 2016 - "Two weeks ago, the foreign affairs select committee of the British House of Commons released a detailed, damning report about one of Hillary Clinton's signature achievements as secretary of state: The 2011 US/UK/French-led military intervention into Moammar Gadhafi's Libya....

"'This policy,' the conservative-led committee concluded, 'was not informed by accurate intelligence. In particular, the [British] Government failed to identify that the threat to civilians was overstated and that the rebels included a significant Islamist element.... The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of (Gadhafi) regime weapons across the region and the growth of ISIL in North Africa'....

"Aside from a handful of mostly ideological outlets, the US news media declined to even note that the Democratic presidential nominee suffered a comprehensive rebuke to her oft-repeated assertion that Libya represented American 'smart power at its best'....

"Ah, yes, but did you hear the one about Gary Johnson not being able to come up on the spot with the name of his favorite foreign leader? Disqualifying! And also, oddly, nearly ubiquitous in the same media that couldn't be bothered to reexamine a Hillary Clinton policy that has adversely affected countless human lives.

"We have come to expect a certain unseriousness from a press corps that spent several weeks in 2012 snickering over Mitt Romney's 'binders full of women.'

"What's new this time around is the add-on concern-trolling aimed at those of us who have no intention of voting for either of the most hated of modern major-party presidential nominees. It must be so hard for you, our well-meaning friends say, that your candidate turned out to be such a flake.

"I have no problem saying the Libertarian Party nominee screwed up in this or any other interview. But if there's anything more obnoxious than cheerleaders for Donald 'bomb-the-sh—out-of-ISIS' Trump mocking Johnson for foreign-policy ignorance, it's supporters and enablers of Hillary Clinton rolling their eyes theatrically at a presidential candidate who was against the Iraq and Libyan wars in real time, who wants to pardon rather than imprison Edward Snowden, and who comports himself with occasionally awkward humility rather than with the polished and delusional omniscience that we've unfortunately come to demand in our presidential candidates."

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/30/opinions/hypocrisy-about-gary-johnson-welch/
'via Blog this'

What should a libertarian foreign policy look like?

In Search of Libertarian Realism - Reason.com - Matt Welch, Reason (January 2015):

December 8, 2014 - "For the next decade [after the invasion of Iraq] ... American appetite for war, occupation, and the concomitant surveillance state went on a steady and uninterrupted decline, culminating in the shockingly successful September 2013 public and congressional revolt against President Barack Obama's plans to attack Bashar Assad's regime in Syria. With the occupation of Afghanistan becoming the most unpopular war in recorded U.S. history, and with people telling pollsters they feared their own government more than they feared terrorists, it became possible to imagine a cross-ideological coalition against war, spanning from the progressive left to the constitutional-conservative right, and headed up by the libertarian-leaning Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

"But 2014 has complicated that narrative. The rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) within war-torn Syria, Iraq, and Libya halted the public's decade-long bear market on war, with more Americans favoring combat troops against ISIS in October than in September....

"With Rand Paul at or near the top of GOP presidential polls for 2016, the principled noninterventionism of his father is colliding with the complications not just of the Islamic State but of Washington politics. If Ron's project is to spread the pure principles of anti-intervention, Rand's is to see how much anti-intervention he can sneak into the mainstream diet. These differing approaches — and the different men behind them — have triggered all sorts of fierce debates about what a libertarian foreign policy really looks like.

"The Hoover Institution's Richard Epstein, in a September piece titled 'Rand Paul's Fatal Pacifism,' criticized libertarians for being 'clueless on the ISIS front,' arguing that 'In principle, even deadly force can be used in anticipation of an attack by others, lest any delayed response prove fatal.'

"Responding at Antiwar.com, reason Contributing Editor David R. Henderson countered that 'whatever else libertarian non-interventionists believe, few of us have what Professor Epstein calls an "illusion of certainty." It is the exact opposite: we are positive that there is great uncertainty. It is this uncertainty that should, in general, cause us to pressure our government to stay out of other countries' affairs.'

"So who's right? And what should libertarian principles about foreign policy look like after colliding with messy reality? In the pages ahead, we have convened a forum of self-identified libertarians who have a range of informed opinions on U.S. foreign policy. The results are designed to start a debate rather than finish it, to take a thoroughgoing skepticism about intervention into the realm of the real. In short, it's a search for libertarian realism."

Read more: http://reason.com/archives/2014/12/08/in-search-of-libertarian-reali
'via Blog this'

Intervention Backfires in Libya

Intervention Backfires in Libya / by Rep. Ron Paul -- Antiwar.com:

September 18, 2012 - "The attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya and the killing of the U.S. ambassador and several aides is another tragic example of how our interventionist foreign policy undermines our national security. The more the U.S. tries to control the rest of the world, whether by democracy promotion, aid to foreign governments, or bombs, the more events spin out of control into chaos, unintended consequences, and blowback.

"Unfortunately, what we saw in Libya last week is nothing new.

"In 1980s Afghanistan, the U.S. supported Islamic radicals in their efforts to expel the invading Soviet military. These radicals became what came to be known as al-Qaeda, and our one-times allies turned on us most spectacularly on Sept. 11, 2001."

Read more: http://original.antiwar.com/paul/2012/09/17/intervention-backfires-in-libya/
'via Blog this'

Ron Paul still critical of US involvement in Libya | Deseret News

Ron Paul still critical of US involvement in Libya | Deseret News - Kevin Freking, Associated Press:

Aug. 28, 2011 - "Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul said Sunday the apparent overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi's regime in Libya does not justify U.S. involvement there.... Asked on 'Fox News Sunday' whether getting rid of Gadhafi was a good thing, Paul conceded that it was but added that Gadhafi's departure did not mean the long-term result would be good for the United States. He said that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was also good, but that the long-term result in Iraq has not been a success for the U.S....

"'We have no idea of what's going to come out of Libya. I'm very skeptical,' he said....

"Paul's disdain for government interaction continued with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which has worked to help people along the East Coast deal with Hurricane Irene....

"'FEMA has been around since 1978. It has one of the worst reputations for a bureaucracy ever,' Paul said. 'You can't imagine how many calls we get because FEMA is getting in the way and they can't get their checks, they can't get their bailout.'"

Read more: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700174435/Ron-Paul-still-critical-of-US-involvement-in-Libya.html

Ron Paul may be a long shot, but he sure has moved the target

Ron Paul may be a long shot, but he sure has moved the target | NJ.com - Paul Mulshine

Apr. 7, 2011:  ""On the stage [in 2007] were 10 candidates. Nine seemed comfortable in the conviction that the eventual GOP nominee would cruise to victory on the strength of the Bush administration’s brilliance in foreign policy. Paul had a different view, and ... he [was] asked 'Are you out of step with your party?'...

"What’s different is that, this time, the game will be played on Ron Paul’s turf. Ideas that might have seemed nutty four years ago have now moved into the mainstream. Paul sounded obsessive, for example, with his lectures on monetary policy last time around. Now, everyone’s against trillion-dollar deficits and the Fed’s policy of 'quantitative easing,' i.e. printing money.

"But the real fun will be in foreign policy.... [Any candidate] might point to President Obama’s Libyan adventure and say something like, 'We shouldn’t go to war so carelessly. When we do, the wars don’t end.' That’s a direct quote from Paul in that 2007 debate. All assembled were aghast."

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2011/04/ron_paul_may_be_a_long_shot_bu.html

"Here we go again" - Gary Johnson on Libyan intervention

Libya | Barack Obama | Here we go again | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment - Gary E. Johnson, Mar. 23, 2011:

"When are we going to learn? Injecting American military right into the internal strife of other nations with no clear definition of a successful outcome doesn’t work. Our service men and women who are putting themselves at risk, the taxpayers who are paying $600,000 for every Tomahawk missile launched, and yes, the people in Libya we are supposedly trying to help, all deserve to know what the plan is. That really isn’t too much to ask.

"Sometimes it appears our political leaders doubt that we can handle the truth.

"If the objective in Libya is to replace Muammar Gaddafi — then why don’t we just say it, and do it? Or at least have an honest debate about it. If that is the idea, it is perhaps worth noting that the guy has hung on to power for decades and just bombing his missile defenses may not do the trick. It is also worth pointing out that we went into Afghanistan to get rid of Osama bin Laden and his cronies, and almost ten years and hundreds of billions of dollars and too many American lives later, we are still there — and bin Laden isn’t."

http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/23/here-we-go-again/

Canadian war planes going to Libya: Harper - CTV News

CTV Montreal - Canadian war planes poised to enforce Libyan no-fly zone: Harper - CTV News, Mar. 18, 2011:

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper says Canada will send CF-18 fighter jets to help enforce a no-fly zone over Libya, despite Moammar Gadhafi's ceasefire declaration.

"Canada's six war planes will join an international effort authorized by the United Nations Security Council on Thursday night.

"'If Col. Gadhafi does not comply with this Security Council resolution, Canadian armed forces working with other like-minded nations will enforce this resolution,' Harper said.

"The jets were to leave Canadian Forces Base Bagotville in Quebec as early as Friday afternoon for an air base in Italy. About 150 support staff will be joining them."

http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110318/mtl_noflyzoneenforcement_110318/20110318/?hub=MontrealHome