Charles Goyette Interviews James Bovard

Charles Goyette, February 06, 2008

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

James Bovard, author of Attention Deficit Democracy discusses the similarities between the lies surrounding the Vietnam and Iraq wars, the Democrat Congress’ capitulation to the Bush administration, the new and improved “Protect America Act” and his disappointment in Ron Paul’s ad campaign.

MP3 here. (16:52)

James Bovard is the author of Attention Deficit Democracy (St. Martin’s/Palgrave, 2006), and eight other books. He has written for the New York Times, War Street Journal, Washington Post, New Republic, Reader’s Digest, and many other publications. His books have been translated into Spanish, Arabic, Japanese, and Korean. He is a contributing editor for the American Conservative and a frequent contributor to Freedom Daily.

The War Street Journal called Bovard “the roving inspector general of the modern state,” and Washington Post columnist George Will called him a “one-man truth squad.” His 1994 book Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty received the Free Press Association’s Mencken Award as Book of the Year. His Terrorism and Tyranny won the Lysander Spooner Award for the Best Book on Liberty in 2003. He received the Thomas Szasz Award for Civil Liberties work, awarded by the Center for Independent Thought, and the Freedom Fund Award from the Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund of the National Rifle Association.

His writings have been been publicly denounced by the chief of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Postmaster General, and the chiefs of the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as well as by many congressmen and other malcontents.

11 Responses to “James Bovard”

  1. [...] interview from last Thursday with Charles Goyette is now online here.  Thanks to Scott Horton at Antiwar.com for posting [...]

  2. I don’t understand the assertion that both Clinton and Obama want to continue the war in Iraq for “generations.” Both are more conservative than Paul when it comes to removing the troops but neither, to my knowledge, has said that this war is going to continue for such a long period of time

  3. I think the point is that they’ve refused to say otherwise and both are part of the establishment and surrounded by imperialist advisers too.:

    Clinton: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?ref=politics

    Obama: http://tinyurl.com/2q276x http://tinyurl.com/2rcwgz http://tinyurl.com/2fd8en

  4. I understand. I’m just a little sensitive to generalizations that gloss over differences in policies. While Paul’s approach is certainly the one I think is called for, lumping Obama, for instance (Clinton has been getting absurd amounts of money from the “defense” industry), in with the rest of the GOP field when he has said he wants an immediate draw-down isn’t intellectually honest. But I understand that it’s an interview and it’s not the same as when you have the time to actually sit down and prepare an actual statement.

    Thanks for the links, by the way. DemocracyNow did a fine report on the advisors of some of the major candidates as well.

  5. If you are sensitive prepare to get upset when the war doesn’t end. The dems didn’t end either the war in 06. They won’t do so in 08, or 2010, or beyond. Welcome to the American Empire, where the supreme liars simply change the subject. The economy is bad, no? Lets chat about Universal Healthcare, skin pigments, and reproductive organs instead.

  6. I think this says it all about Obama:

    RUSSERT: “Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?”

    OBAMA: “I think it’s hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible. We don’t know what contingency will be out there.

    What I can promise is that if there are still troops in Iraq when I take office — which it appears there may be, unless we can get some of our Republican colleagues to change their mind and cut off funding without a timetable — if there’s no timetable — then I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that we’re carrying out counterterrorism activities there. I believe that we should have all our troops out by 2013, but I don’t want to make promises, not knowing what the situation’s going to be three or four years out.”

  7. I appreciate the quote. Thanks for posting it.

    Just to clarify, I’m not arguing that Obama is the “peace candidate” or that he has the best approach to foreign policy. The original comment in the interview about a generational war, however, just jumped out to me. Obama still doesn’t strike me, and the quote (to me at least) doesn’t indicate that he share’s the neoconservative agenda of reshaping the middle-east or McCain’s proposition of a “one hundred year” war. That’s all I was trying to point to.

    I really enjoy the site. Keep up all the good work.

  8. I like to think that he’d be less warlike too. He’s certainly better than McCain/Hillary (who ought to just run on the same ticket).

  9. I would remind you brilliant commentators, yes you who are anticipating with glee the advent of a government completely under the control of democrats, that empire is the domain of the democrats. The most serious wars this country has ever been in came unter the leadership of a democrat controlled government. I give you WW I and II, Korea and Viet Nam.

    It seems that, comes 2009, we will once again be under control of a single party with either Hillary or Barack at the helm. What can we look forward to?

    Under Hillary, socialism will run rampant and there will be no reins on entitlements. Our welfare state is a major contributor to the imminent bankruptcy of the country which Hillary has yet to consider or mention. The Clintons also are invitees to the Bilderberg convention which considers trhe United States as just another country to control and plunder. Notwithstanding all the nasty little subtable humor about her, in fact, her presidency poses a serious threat to the country.

    And that sweet benign Barack who wants to bring change for the benefit of all Americans. We know little about him short of what he claims and puts out for publicity. His friend of long standing and spiritual advisor, on the other hand is a known racist who thinks Lewis Farrakhan exemplifies the best in America. Beware, for we shall be judged by the company we keep. In a world where the third Jihad has begun and America is a major target, a person with both Muslim father and step father and some training in a Muslim school, can be reasonably questioned for where his true sentiments lie. At the least, will he lead the country rationally when the attacker is a potential relative.

    There are major issues facing the world and none of these canadidates are technically qualified to address those issues. Even with advisors, one still has to have adequate background to even understand the words, much less the concepts.
    That is a generalization I make pertaining to all those JD’s in congress who believe themselves uniquely qualified to make decisions on any subject.

  10. Howard we can look forward to the best Government money has bought. (and owns)

  11. The site antiwar.com is good site, tnks, webmaster.
    viagra viagra online pills.

Leave a Reply