Barr’s campaign manager praises President Bush for his ‘incredible leadership’ on 9/11

Russ Verney, Bob Barr’s campaign manager, just doesn’t get it. He persuaded his candidate to snub Ron Paul’s third-party press conference on Wednesday and hold his own press conference down the hall, where Barr criticized Paul’s effort. And when that released a torrent of criticism, Verney defended those actions on Thursday but used the occasion to shoot himself in his other foot. It being 9/11, Verney apparently felt compelled to be ecumenical toward national socialists, even while criticizing Paul’s ecumenical efforts with third parties:

In times of crisis, strength in leadership requires boldness of character, clear direction and firm resolve. As we witnessed after the attacks of September 11th, President George W. Bush showed incredible leadership as he stood atop a fire truck amidst the rubble of the twin towers to rally America.

President Bush used 9/11 as a pretext for gutting our Constitution and Bill of Rights, and for involving the U.S. in an unconstitutional war against a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11—and Russ Verney praises him for “incredible leadership” on 9/11?

Verney thinks the choreographed fire truck speech demonstrated “incredible leadership” in a time of crisis—but he forgets to mention President Bush’s incredible leadership in that Florida classroom as the events were actually taking place on 9/11.

Most Americans thought Mayor Rudy Giuliani provided the 9/11 leadership that was so strangely missing from the White House.

64 Responses to “Barr’s campaign manager praises President Bush for his ‘incredible leadership’ on 9/11”

  1. Mike g Says:

    Showing His and Barr’s true colors with this statement. Vote Republican—Vote Barr08.

  2. Jay Matthews Says:

    Great post David. If Barr wants to salvage his campaign and make a real effort to undo the damage done by snubbing the RP press conference he’ll find a replacement and fire Verney. If the Daily Paul is any indication Barr lost a slew of votes by his no-show.

  3. Dr.Gonzo Says:

    Like it or not, Bush did show leadership post 9/11. There is a difference between being filled with blind hatred, and actually disliking a man but giving him credit where its due.

  4. Kenny Says:

    What’s next? Verney praising Cheney for torturing suspects, including Brits, at Gitmo?

  5. Dr.Gonzo Says:

    What’s next? Verney praising Cheney for torturing suspects, including Brits, at Gitmo?

    You have come up with some horrible analogies. Giving Bush credit for leadership post-9/11 does not mean he is praising hte administration.

  6. Jay Matthews Says:

    This just in,.......Verney refers to Pol Pot as a “cool dude.” Film at 11.

  7. Anthony Gregory Says:

    What “leadership” did Bush provide on 9/11? Come on. Be serious. Think back to that day. He was missing all day, and then at the end of the day gave a poor speech.

  8. Stefan Says:

    David Francke: Spot on!
    Verney forgot to mention Bush & McCain’s leadership with the big cake during hurricane Kathina.

    Verney not only managed to isolate the LP from other libertarian or with libertarian elements third party groups, but also some certain LP members. Verney may be a good, experienced campaign manager, but he is a political imbecile.

  9. Dr.Gonzo Says:

    Verney not only managed to isolate the LP from other libertarian or with libertarian elements third party groups, but also some certain LP members. Verney may be a good, experienced campaign manager, but he is a political imbecile.

    Did it ever occur to you that they may be reaching out to non-Libertarians? Which is the whole point of the campaign.

    Giving Bush credit for his handling of post-9/11 will score points with many Americans.

  10. Kenny Says:

    Really Dr Gonzo? Is Barr reaching out to Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer or Michael Medved? The neo-cons and their fellow travellers are the only ones who are impressed by Bush post-9/11. Even David Frum is unimpressed.

  11. Jay Matthews Says:

    “Giving Bush credit for his handling of post-9/11 will score points with many Americans.

    This is further proof gonzo is either a troll or a moron.

    Hey gonzo, do you know what Bush’s approval rating is? Look it up genius, then come back here and tell everyone publicly praising him is sound advice.

  12. Dr.Gonzo Says:


    Did you know what Bush’s approval ratings were post-9/11? Look it up genius, and then come back here and tell everyone.

    Barr is proving he can rise above party politics and give credit in places where it is deserved.

    Simply giving one area where Bush was good in no way means I support him. I thought he should have been impeached awhile ago. That doesn’t mean I’m a hack who can’t give credit where it is deserved. Unfortunately the same can’t be said about you.

  13. Jay Matthews Says:

    I know what they were in ‘02. That’s 6 years ago. Even McCain himself knows better than to plug Bush and HE WAS ENDORSED BY HIM. Get a quarter and buy yourself a clue.

  14. Dr.Gonzo Says:


    So you knew what Bush’s approval ratings were in 2002, but Barr is wrong for giving him credit for his actions in 2002? He did not give him credit for any of his current policies.

    Seems your argument sort of fell apart on you. While using phrases like “get a quarter and buy yourself a clue” may make yourself feel good, it does not change the fact that you were wrong.

  15. Jay Matthews Says:

    First it wasn’t Barr it was Verney. Second, since his approval rating is in the toilet and praising him for something which occurred 6 years ago doesn’t make any sense. In case you hadn’t noticed the country’s economic indicators aren’t pointing towards prosperity.

    If you think it does make sense ask the McCain campaign why he doesn’t reference Bush more on the campaign trail. Actually I don’t think he mentioned him at all by name in his RNC speech. Even his people know better.

    “That doesn’t mean I’m a hack who can’t give credit where it is deserved.”

    Remember our exchange regarding JV and his comments about OBL on the FBI website. Yes, it’s safe to say you are a hack.

  16. Stefan Says:

    Dr. Gonzo: did it ever occur to you that the 4 point document that all the 4 major third parties signed is a very libertarian document as such? I mean non-interventionist foreign policy, pro civil-liberties, anti-crony capitalism, fiscally conservative or in any case fiscally restrictive etc?? I would say it is a breakthrough to get especially Nader and the Greens to sign that.
    It is not only a declaration for parties to work together.

    If you think the appeal was for Ron Paul support would be to be (equally) divided among the four parties, then you make a BIG mistake. It is (or was) already clear that most Ron Paul supporters would vote for Barr and also a sizable amount for Baldwin and only a small number for Nader and McKinney probably only a douzen (if indeed so much). It is more an appeal to voting groups who would otherwise either not have voted or have voted for McBama as lesser of two evils.

    “Giving Bush credit for his handling of post-9/11 will score points with many Americans” Oh really. Bush was perhaps popular in 2002 but now his approval rating is at a record low. What about his “Mission accomplished” photo-op on the Navy ship? A popular and accurate description? Oh really…give me a break.
    Also: good job that the FBI never thought strange that Arab Muslims wanted pilot training in Florida a year before the attack, e.g. only to fly, not to land a plane, with no suspicion?

  17. Stefan Says:

    Dr. Gonzo:Verney praises Bush and critisizes Paul? Great job to attract disaffected Republicans, Democrats and Independents and Ron Paul supporters especially. Verney is a political genius….sorry I never saw how he praised Paul for his lifelong example for liberty.

    BTW: Verney wants to criticise McKinney’s presence, but too interesting that Paul and Barr’s friend, Bruce Fein (also with the American Freedom Agenda, of which Barr is also a member) also spoke at a recent Cindy Sheehan campaign meeting about Bush impeachment, and McKinney and Nader are part of Sheehan’s campaign

    If you want to appeal to Bush voters, do it like Paul and Barr has done, by praising gov. Bush debate promise of no nation building, humble foreign policy etc.

  18. Dr.Gonzo Says:


    Actually giving him credit for an action that happen on 9/11 7 years ago makes complete sense. I’m sorry if you are unable to see that.


    Barr supported the 4 point document. Why would he get up there with two socialists who ideology would never be able to decrease government spending? That makes no sense. As long as he makes an appearance and sucks up to Saint Paul it would have been alright though?

    And they weren’t “praising” Bush. Simply giving him credit for how he handled the immediate aftermath of 9/11.

  19. Jay Matthews Says:

    I can see that, and it still makes no sense to do so if you’re someone in Verney’s position trying to garner as much support as possible for your candidate. He is praising someone who is highly unpopular for “incredible leadership as he stood atop a fire truck amidst the rubble of the twin towers to rally America. ”

    You know what, Verney’s right. Had Al Gore been president he might not have wanted to fly to NYC as that would contribute to global warming. Hence, the nation would have been deprived of incredible leadership.

    Verney, you’re a genius!

  20. Dr.Gonzo Says:


    I don’t disagree that criticizing Paul may not have been the best position to take. However, I believe Barr garnered a lot of attention from this and proved one main point: Bob Barr is running on Bob Barr’s platform. He isn’t piggybacking Ron Paul like the other 3 are trying to do. Only a professional politician like Barr would have done something like that.

  21. Jay Matthews Says:

    I made no comment regarding criticizing RP, but the no-show has turned off many people. I don’t blame the other three. They need all the exposure they can get and so does Barr.

  22. DonaldRLake Says:

    Reform Party Agent Provacateur,

    Reform Party Agent Provacateur,

    Reform Party Agent Provacateur!

    Didn’t any one at BobBarr08 notice
    the dark cloud over the guy’s head,
    or the lack of any thing looking like
    progress or sucess from the 1990’s.

    It is not like Steve Gordon and others
    ‘were not told’!

    I told ya so, I told ya so, I told ya so!

  23. ooooooff! Says:

    Standing on top of a firetruck is great and praiseworthy? But snoozing for a month at his ranch in 8-11, after being explicitly warned about Al Qaeda attacks, looking like a mentally handicapped idiot during 9-11, then going into hiding and zigzagging all over the country like a skeered rabbit, then accusing OBL without offering any evidence and without telling anyone HOW you got the evidence or telling people why it was so easy to get the evidence right AFTER 9-11 but you had NO IDEA what was going to happen beforehand, then gutting the constitution, then invading and occupying 2 countries neither of whose government had any part in 9-11, but one of which hated Al Qaeda and the other of which offered to arrest OBL for you as soon as you would show them the evidence which you magically found a couple of days after 9-11 … what the fcuk is that, Bob Barr?

  24. Mike Says:

    Barr lost my vote over this whole debacle. As a libertarian, I would suggest that the Libertarian Party change its name. The LP is no longer libertarian when it comes to foreign policy and the ‘war on terror’. Perhaps the Disgruntled Conservative Party would be a more appropriate name. Maybe I can seek refuge in the Boston Tea Party. Time to party like it’s 1773! Charles Jay 2008!

  25. DixieFlatline Says:

    Is this the part of the show were Verney gets thrown under the bus for Barr?

    The campaign is over. It is struggling with ballot access, it is struggling with getting a message out. It has actually alienated libertarians and the largest liberty movement this year, and that process was well underway before Verney had major screw ups.

    Barr needs to man up and take responsibility. And why is Shane Cory also getting a free pass?

  26. Gonzola Says:

    Gonzo hits the nail on the head!

    “Bob Barr is running on Bob Barr’s platform.” - not a recognizable form of libertarian platform

  27. Dr.Gonzo Says:

    “Bob Barr is running on Bob Barr’s platform.” - not a recognizable form of libertarian platform

    False. Maybe you should read Barr’s platform.

    For some reason we seem to be the only party where the radicals or purists are the only ones who are welcomed. Meanwhile the moderates are the outcasts.


    I would suggest you try to go sell a soft stance and a complete withdrawal from world affairs to the American people. Lets see how serious they take you.

    Barr’s goal is to win. He knows what message he needs to promote to do so.

    The people on this site show just how little people in the LP actually know about politics.

  28. JT Says:

    Dr. Gonzo: “Barr’s goal is to win. He knows what message he needs to promote to do so. The people on this site show just how little people in the LP actually know about politics.”

    If Barr or anyone else thought he might win the presidency, then it’s they who know little about politics. That’s a fantasy that borders on insanity. In fact, all polls show that he won’t even win one state. What he should be doing at every opportunity (and isn’t) is promoting the Libertarian label. Then he’d be campaigning not only for himself, but for other Libertarian candidates and the Libertarian Party. That’s what a third-party candidate should be doing.

  29. sigh Says:

    The only leadership Bush showed on 9/11 was when he embraced the Arab-American community and reminded people that they aren’t our enemy.

    It would have been nice if Bob Barr was familiar with Michael Scheuer. He seems to not understand why Al Qaeda is at war with us. If he doesn’t understand our enemy then he will be an ineffective leader like Bush or McCain/Obama. I never thought he was a libertarian but I was hoping he shared the same foreign policy views as the paleoconservatives. Also how about those Wiccans he attacked. I never saw an apology for trying to deny their religious freedom.

  30. Mike Says:

    Dr. Gonzo,
    by your reasoning, Ron Paul also sells a “soft stance and a complete withdrawal from world affairs to the American people”. I would say that Paul’s ‘soft stance’ was much more popular than what Barr and Root are selling.

    you go on to say, “the people on this site show just how little people in the LP actually know about politics”. if that’s your opinion of the LP, then maybe you and your disgruntled conservative cronies should try and take over another party. I’d rather stick to principle and get 1% of the vote, then sell out and get 5% of the vote.

  31. Jay Matthews Says:

    “Barr’s goal is to win. He knows what message he needs to promote to do so.”

    He should have seized the opportunity to do just that at RP’s press conference. People were looking forward to his presence.

  32. Cisse Says:

    I can’t say that I blame Barr for not wanting to stand on the stage with a socialist (McKinney) and a professional fraud, and whore (Nader), but it could have been executed a lot better. I do think Verney is an idiot for the Bush line - the timing was impressively bad. It’s too bad Bush didn’t fall in the fire…

    Though I’m personally as libertarian purist as one can get, I’m still voting for Barr. I have read his platform, and there are many things I have some beef with, but it is better by far than anything else available on the menu. I am more purely libertarian than Ron Paul, too, but I voted for him in the primary. If the LP wants to remain completely pure, then there is really no point in having a political party. I’m willing to try something new, if it might help move us in the right direction. Sitting in a small group bitching to other libertarians about the government hasn’t helped overly much.

  33. Michael Seebeck Says:

    First of all, don’t paint the entire LP with a brush meant for Verney and Barr. They royally screwed up Tuesday, not the rest of the LP.

    Second, Bush ran away and tried to hide on 9/11. Some leadership.

    Third, where’s Root? He is conspicuous by his absence…and the statement in the Barr release doesn’t count.

    Fourth, Barr needs to both apologize to Paul and quit the race, Verney, Cory, Davis, and Kraus need to be fired, in the latter two cases, twice, and their cronies on the LNC need to resign.

  34. dodsworth Says:

    Mary Ruwart is looking pretty good right now.

  35. Hunter S. Thompson Says:

    FYI… I do not approve of the comments appearing under the name Dr. Gonzo.

    When the government can’t stop a terrorist attack, even when one of the conspirators involved turns himselfs in and reveals the details of the plot, no one in that government deserves credit. Is that same government forcing NBC to keep the footage restricted? Thank god for the internet.

    Dr. Gonzo == Russ Verney?

  36. Jay Matthews Says:

    Mike, Barr should show some humility. Quitting the race is extreme and unnecessary. He made a mistake, he didn’t kill anyone.

  37. Mike Says:

    Hunter S. Thompson,
    great call. I think you unmasked this Dr. Gonzo.

  38. Dr.Gonzo Says:


    Actually Paul’s foreign policy stances were largely laughed at by the vast majority of Americans. If only young people voted it would have been good.

    Barr understands this difference and realizes you need to appear tough on national security or nobody will ever take you seriously.

    And I’m not, nor have I ever been part of the Conservative movement. And if you are happy to stay at 1% without compromising then you are wasting your time in a political party. We have not sacrificed any principles as the core is still there. In this fantasy world of all or nothing where everyone is a Libertarian that idea would be good. Unfortunately 99% of the country aren’t Libertarian so we need to compromise on some issues.

    The extreme to which these Paul lemmings go is hilarious. Barr criticized Saint Paul (who basically stole millions to do nothing and remain a member of the Republican Party) and some members of the LP thinks he should quit. That notion is laughable at best.

  39. Rick Fisk Says:

    “They royally screwed up Tuesday, not the rest of the LP.”

    Sorry, but Barr, given his background and the shenanigans that preceded the convention in Denver via the likes of Corey, should have tipped everyone to the fact that the candidate was a trojan horse. A few pointed out the problems but everyone was Badnarik-shy and starry-eyed over the possibility that such a well-known figure might take up the LP mantle.

    I think some ideological purity is in order. When Barr goes on national television saying we need to root out terror with our military after he has already accepted the LP nomination, you should just stop pretending that the LP is anything but a shell of its former self.

    That people like Wayne Allen Root (W.A.R!) could be given a spot on the ticket is enough of a disgrace.

    And please…..Bush showed leadership? What about the fact that the terror attacks happened on his watch?

    What about the fact that it was his administration that decided that banning plastic forks would make us safer after 9/11?

    How about the largest bureaucratic expansion in history (Homeland Security).


  40. Rick Fisk Says:

    “Actually Paul’s foreign policy stances were largely laughed at by the vast majority of Americans.”

    Shouldn’t you just use the handle “Eric Dondero”? Give us a break.

  41. Dr.Gonzo Says:


    I have no idea who Eric is. I was stating the truth. Besides the Paulites, the vast majority of Americans laughed at Paul’s foreign policy stances.

    You can be non-interventionist and still be tough on national security. Paul didn’t seem to realize that.

    You expect Barr to go on national television and say I don’t care about rooting out terror? Please tell me people aren’t really this stupid. No wonder this party has continually received less than 1% of the vote. Thankfully we have a professional politician that knows what it takes to sell our principles to the American people.

  42. Mike Says:

    Dr. Gonzo,
    Paul’s foreign policy that was ‘largely laughed at by most Americans’ was at least libertarian. All I’m doing is calling a spade a spade. Barr’s foreign policy is that of a conservative. libertarian does not equal conservative. and it’s becoming more clear to me that libertarian does not equal Libertarian. If the LP wants to go the way of the neoconservatives, at least give the party another name. It gives us libertarians a bad name.

  43. Dr.Gonzo Says:


    The problem is you see this in black and white. Its either your way or no way at all. As I said before, 99% of the country isn’t Libertarian. That means they want a strong national defense.

    Who cares what you remain if you are just here to never get anywhere? And being a TRUE conservative (which I am not) isn’t all that awful. Our party was founded by a man who grew his beliefs from a true conservative.

    We haven’t sacrificed our liberty by saying we want to go after terrorists. That is basically a no brainer. We can still be non-interventionist.

  44. Mike Says:

    Dr. Gonzo,
    the LP was originally an organization for activism and education in the pursuit of liberty. Winning elections was not a top priority. Teaching Americans about liberty was. you’re exactly right, most Americans are not libertarian. therefore, the only way the LP will win elections on a national level is if it is something other than libertarian. What’s the point of a Libertarian party that is not libertarian? If what you are interested in is votes, change the name to the Conservative Party. You’ll probably attract more people that way, and the party as it exists would be true to its name.

    also, I have heard Barr and Root talk about a foreign policy that would hardly be described as ‘non-interventionist’.

  45. William Dalton Says:

    Dr. G: I agree with you that Bob Barr should be reaching beyond the usual constituency of the Libertarian Party in order to build his campaign and the Party itself. But praising anything in relation to George W Bush and his reaction to 9/11 is not the way to do it. In fact, that is just what both the Republican and Democrat Parties did, precisely because it was popular to do so, and we see what a disaster it was. Yes, Americans want a strong national defense and Americans need a credible candidate for President who will tell them that fighting foreign wars is not the way to do it. On the contrary, these foreign military adventures are jeopardizing our national security. When 9/11 occurred, America needed a President to stand up and tell us that this disaster befell us because of the poor policy choices of our leaders, including former Presidents Bush and Clinton, for giving radical Muslims in the Middle East reasons to hate the United States. This is what conservatives like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan told us, and the coalition we need to build is with left wing radicals like Nader and McKinney who said and say the same thing. This the is reason and purpose of the joint statement engineered by Ron Paul, and the only reason to believe we can build a viable third party movement. What this country doesn’t need is another party to shout “Rah-rah, America” every time our leaders get us in another stupid war.

  46. Dr.Gonzo Says:


    The problem as I see it is that Barr has to juggle a message of strong national defense (one that Americans will support) with a message of non-intervention (ones that LP members will support). He is in a very difficult position.

    I don’t disagree our intervention has done far more damage than good. We know that, however the American public does not. Basically we need our candidate to have the foreign policy of the 2000 Bush which juggled both of those aspects pretty well.

    And I don’t really mind Barr giving Bush credit for post-9/11. I realize Bush is hated more than anyone, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t deserving of some credit in some instances.

  47. William Dalton Says:

    Gonzo, a message of strong national defense on the basis of non-intervention is incompatible with fighting foreign wars to chase down “terrorists” overseas. It may not have been popular after 9/11, but it is what was needed to be said, and there is no failure in George W Bush’s presidency greater than his failure to do it. Capitalizing on America’s hurt for 9/11 by rallying the country “to go get ‘em”, when doing so meant fighting costly, bloody and un”win”able wars on the other side of the Earth was a crime of the first order, and no one who wants to offer America an alternative to the Democrat and Republican Parties should say any differently. McCain and Obama say they would have fought the same or different wars, only they would have been smarter about it. The meaning of George W Bush’s 2000 campaign promise of a more modest foreign policy and no nation building was a promise that he would do no such thing, that he wouldn’t allow America to be drawn in by the sucker punch applied to us by Al Qaeda, like Brer Bear and Brer Fox being induced to punching the Tar Baby. Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party aren’t going to win the White House this year on this basis, it’s true, but they aren’t going to do so anyway. What Barr and the Libertarians need to do is offer a credible alternative to the Democrats and Republicans in the hope and faith that one day Americans will wise up and vote for them. Americans will never “wise up” if they never hear credible politicians giving them the message.

  48. Tim Says:

    I have the solution to his and other problems, it comes in the person of Chuck Baldwin. We do not need nor do we want more Politics!

    Chuck Baldwin Constitution Party

  49. sigh Says:

    Bush has not made us more safe. He has pissed off the whole Muslim world beyond Osama Bin Laden’s expectations.

    Bob Barr, could get his history right about Iraq. There was no reason to invade Iraq. The United States knew Iraq didn’t have weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence was cooked.

    Instead of praising the establishment he should use the history of the failures/lies of the last couple administrations and rub it in their face while educating Americans. Speak truth to power! This is war on the War Party establishment that indoctrinates the American people, and controls the government. People only have access to one point of view on tv and that is the War Party’s point of view.

  50. Stefan Says:

    Dr. Gonzo: It is clear you do not understand Paul’s foreign policy and it is definitely not laughed at, only by those that do not understand it. He is basically calling for a neutral foreign policy and trade and dialogue and diplomacy with all, while having a strong national defense. He has always been consistent on this.
    I would rather say foreign policy is not a major concern to the average, non-thinking voter, who have been influenced by radio news. Paul repeatedly said he is running on the 2000 Bush foreign policy of no-nation building, stay out of entangling alliances etc. and Bush did win the election on that basis, thus Ron Paul’s foreign policy is more supported by 50% of the population than 1 %. He has to work through the fearmongering of the Bush administration post 911.
    He supported the action in Afghanistan to go after Al Qaeda, but NOT to overthrow the Taliban…and what has that really helped? Special troops along with Afghan and Pakistani allies could have secretly lead an operation to find Osama Bin Laden in the caves. This is much more military effective than trying to overthrow the whole govt. Bush acted originally correct and had all the sympathy in the world, but they totally blew it, especially with the Iraq invasion.

    have no idea who Eric is. I was stating the truth. Besides the Paulites, the vast majority of Americans laughed at Paul’s foreign policy stances.

    You can be non-interventionist and still be tough on national security. Paul didn’t seem to realize that.

    You expect Barr to go on national television and say I don’t care about rooting out terror? Please tell me people aren’t really this stupid. No wonder this party has continually received less than 1% of the vote. Thankfully we have a professional politician that knows what it takes to sell our principles to the American people.

  51. sigh Says:

    What Bob Barr should do on TV:

    Bob Barr should point out that we don’t know exactly where Al Qaeda is and destabilizing a nuclear powered Muslim country is not in our interest. It is unwise to make Pakistan our enemy. He should point out we screwed up big at Tora Bora (some say where we lost the War on Terror). The bad guys got away. He should discuss how the US government’s foreign policy produces terrorist. It isn’t because they hate our freedoms. Our wars and support for unpopular regimes in the Middle East are radicalizing Muslims, leading them to terrorism. We are doing exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants. We are destroying our liberties and our economy because of war. He wants us out of the way so he can go after the regimes in the Middle East. Are they worth the risk of terror and the loss of blood and treasure? We need to stop growing the hydra (stop what is upsetting the Muslim world), work with other regimes to bring these people to justice, and only attack when we know exactly where Osama Bin Laden/Al Qaeda leadership is.

  52. Jeff Albertson Says:

    DonaldRLake - Exactly. Alarms went off when I got my first email from Verney, but I still stupidly sent them a hundred bucks. D’oh! Verney &co, destroyed the Buchanan candidacy and the reform party when they were doing too well. Google Russ Verney and find the James Antle piece. I can’t quite connect all the dots, but I believe Verney to be Perot’s agent, with the immediate goal to destroy the Libertarian party; long range goal to elect DLC Democrats, like Perot did. Twice.

    I like Barr and consider him to be honorable and smart, but
    He. Got. Pwned.

  53. Mike Says:

    Dr. G,
    lest we forget that Paul’s foreign policy is what in large part attracted his legions of followers. Had he been spewing the same neocon garbage that the other Republican nominees were, his campaign would not have been nearly as successful. Paul’s foreign policy made him stand out from the crowd. By adopting an interventionist foreign policy, Barr and the LP look like ‘Republican light’. since this issue doesn’t make Barr stand out from other conservatives, he will lose libertarian and quasi-libertarian vote to the GOP, especially since Palin is on the ticket. The LP blew a chance to carry on the message of the rEVOLution. Hopefully they will reinvent themselves.

  54. Stomp Says:

    Dr. Gonzo,

    Regarding Barr and his ilk, my mother would caution me in my youth not to “cut off your nose to spite your face.” You can post excuses for their words and deeds all day long, but the damage has been done. Barr & Comp. are missing their noses, and I might add, their brains as well, not to mention their principles. Alienating Ron Paul supporters. many who had decided to vote for Barr, while at the same time praising Bush of all people (!!) was just plain dumb. What a disaster for the LP in 2008. R.I.P.

  55. Dr.Gonzo Says:

    There is no such thing as a one size fits all foreign policy. It is fact that in rare occasions an intervention will be needed. In many cases it will not.

    Barr in no way advocates an interventionist foreign policy. He just lives in reality. The place where most purists have never heard of.

    Overthrowing the Taliban was definitely justified. To no do so would have been stupid, and compeltly ignorant of history.

  56. Dr. Truth Says:

    It is true that Barr voted for the Patriot Act. A true libertarian would know that the patriot act stands against everything they believe in. It is clear to me that Barr is just another shill and possibly a setup for Libertarians that were following Ron Paul but not completely educated about what is really going on.

  57. William Dalton Says:

    The problem with “overthrowing” the Taliban, Dr. G, is that the one doing the “overthrowing” is then obliged to provide a replacement government. We got off to a decent start with the loya gerga and the selection of Hamid Karzai, but after six years of the Karzai government what we find is that he controls less of his nation’s territory than he did to begin with and even what degree of control he seems to enjoy requires the presence of NATO troops to maintain. In that respect his government seems to have no more legitimacy than those installed by the Soviet Union in the 70’s and 80’s. Perhaps if we had kept up the campaign in 2003 until Al Qaeda and the Taliban were completely defeated and not allowed to take refuge in the FATA of Pakistan, matters would be different today. But we will never know. What we do know is that the government in Kabul we established and for which we are responsible has not been able to make it on its own, and the longer we stay the more its power shrinks and the more we are hated.

    Maybe not trying to do in Afghanistan in this decade what the Soviets tried to do thirty years ago would have shown a greater understanding of history and would have been less stupid than what we have done.

  58. belle Says:

    Dr. Gonzo, you must be 20 feet all considering the way you are stretching the truth.

    9/11 happened on George Bush’s watch and he failed the American people. You can slice it and dice it any way you want but that’s the truth.

    And for those who believe the myth about the “great” Rudy? I was in Tower One of the WTC when it was attacked and it was the firemen and policemen who were the real leaders. While Rudy was cowering in safety, they risked their lives for us. Rudy is a legend in his own mind.

  59. Dr.Gonzo Says:


    A government in Afghanistan has never, nor will they ever control the whole country. The best they can hope for is to control the major cities. Afghanistan is a tribal country and it doesn’t look like it will change anytime soon.

    The Soviets went into Afghanistan to take it over. Our mission was justified by almost everyone in the world. At that time, there was nobody standing up for the Taliban.

    I agree a legitimate leader is something that needs to be installed. Although, Karzai’s legitimacy takes a hit when NATO continually bombs civilians. Nothing much Karzai can do about that.

    The biggest reason is because we haven’t put the real focus on Afghanistan. We need to pull all resources from Iraq and focus on Afghanistan where the actual threat is.


    Actually to blame 9/11 on either Clinton or Bush shows a complete lack of understanding surround the event. 9/11 was a complete failure by the intelligence community.

  60. Scott Harmon Says:

    Dr. Gonzo, you have all the answers, so I will ask the questions: - What is the reward for our foreign policy? - Is it vengeance? I’d say we’ve had enough vengeance already, if one counts deaths as vengeance. - Is it teaching a lesson? What lesson? - Is it power? Power over what? - Is it unlimited oil? Then, for whom? - Is it some sort of Anglo/NATO-oriented domination over a large chunk of the world? That should prove interesting, when the “white race” shrinks to 10% of the world population sometime after 2050. - Is a belief that we will inhibit terrorism? I’d love to see the evidence of that. Oh, sure, we haven’t been attacked, but if we can never guarantee permanent safety, then what’s the point? Better to be reactive than to create shadows everywhere that we are afraid of. This point gives me particular pleasure in argument so you might want to focus here.

    Give it your best shot.

  61. William Dalton Says:

    Gonzo, the object of the Soviets in moving into Afghanistan was to remove a government they viewed as hostile to their interests. And, remember, Afghanistan was a bordering country to the Soviet Union. Once they removed that government, they were responsible to install a replacement government that would be accepted and supported by the Afghan people. They failed to do so. That failure destroyed the legend of Soviet invincibility, it hastened the collapse of their economy, overstrained as it was by massive military overspending, and it hastened the destruction of its empire and its state.

    Now, substitute the United States for the Soviet Union in that sentence and tell me how true it rings, both as a statement of history and a likely prediction of our future. (With the exception, of course, that Afghanistan is far from our borders, and we haven’t nearly the reason the Soviet Union had to intervene there.)

    The world was agreed that the U.S. was justified to revenge itself for 9/11, against both Al Qaeda and the Taliban that supported them. But being justified does not mean being wise. George H.W. Bush understood that the U.N. authorized coalition would be justified in removing Saddam Hussein after his invasion of Kuwait and failure to withdraw under U.N. sanctions, but it wouldn’t be wise to do so, because then we would we responsible for replacing him and we had no replacement that would be better than Saddam himself. That is the case today, where we have installed a government favorable to the Shiia majority of Iraqis, which government will always be more attached to their co-religionists in Iran than they are to us.

    Ron Paul had it right - launch an air assault upon Al Qaeda encampments that would effectively destroy them as a force for international terror, and assist friendly governments, such as those in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, to wrap them up whereever they would seek sanctuary. But don’t put American boots on the ground in lands where we are unwanted aliens, in support of artificially concocted governments that can’t sustain themselves among their own people. If that means we let Osama “get away”, then we let him get away. If we had walked away on our terms, it wouldn’t have mattered. We would have made our point, and everyone would know we could do it again if we had to. But now we have to live with Osama uncaptured under circumstances where we are increasingly seen to be losing in Afghanistan, and where we have already spent what capital we had among the Afghan people that may have allowed us to steer them towards a government friendly to our interests. We can’t “win” this war anymore than the Soviet Union, the British Raj, or any other power in history has been able to. We can’t even bomb these people “back to the stone age”, as some would like, because they are already there.

    We have already “fixed” Afghanistan, that after we leave they will establish a government which for many years will be hostile to us and have no desire to do us any favors. If we continue on this course, we will leave nuclear-armed Pakistan the same way. In other words, we have already “lost” in Afghanistan as we have “lost” in Iraq, and the only question now is how much more we will “lose” the longer we stay.

  62. disinter Says:

    Actually to blame 9/11 on either Clinton or Bush shows a complete lack of understanding surround the event. 9/11 was a complete failure by the intelligence community.

    Something like that.

  63. Jay Matthews Says:

    “You expect Barr to go on national television and say I don’t care about rooting out terror?”

    Actually no, but although a bit of a tired point, it’s not govt’s job to “root out terror” it’s to keep the nation safe. There’s a difference. “Terror” can exist anywhere and at any time. But the whole “war on terror” is a joke anyway. There is no real enemy, no objective goals, hence the war can last forever, (and so far it has), the profiteers keep profiting, the police state keeps advancing, and Bush-41’s NWO continues to establish itself rather nicely in the mideast.

  64. belle Says:

    Disinter - thanks for the link. It was heartbreaking to hear that girl scream for help. I saw bodies falling that day and one of them could have been her.

    Dr. Gonzo - you are hopeless naive. I pity you.

Leave a Reply