Scott Horton Interviews Anthony Gregory

Scott Horton, March 08, 2011

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.

Anthony Gregory, Editor in Chief of Campaign for Liberty, discusses the positive effects of governmental paralysis; why Obama gets too much credit for simply following the Iraq SOFA signed by G.W. Bush; the nearly three-fold increase of troops and mercenaries in Afghanistan during the Obama administration; the degeneration of principled antiwar arguments into partisan talking points; and how the Mideast revolutions now unfolding could have swept up Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as well – had he been left alone.

MP3 here. (19:50)

Anthony Gregory is a research analyst at the Independent Institute, Editor in Chief of Campaign for Liberty, moderator of the Beacon, policy adviser to the Future of Freedom Foundation and columnist for LewRockwell.com. He guest edits Strike the Root. His writing has appeared in such places as the Christian Science Monitor San Diego Union Tribune, Antiwar.com, the Journal of Libertarian Studies, Counterpunch, the American Conservative, Liberty Magazine, the Mises Institute blog, the Stress Blog, The Libertarian Enterprise and Liberty and Power, as well as in textbooks, journals and other outlets, and has been translated in several languages.

He wrote for Michael Badnarik’s 2004 campaign. He got his B.A. in history at UC Berkeley in 2003, where he wrote his thesis on the 1993 Waco disaster. He sings and plays in a rock band, the Melatones, and is an Eagle Scout. He gives talks frequently and is now writing an Independent Institute book on habeas corpus, detention policy and individual liberty.

10 Responses to “Anthony Gregory”

  1. Bush wasn't so totally consumed by the Israeli lobby as Obama.
    Prior to Obama's run for Presidency there were several investigative articles written detailing who put up the money to launch Obama on his way. This should have brought up red flags but as always the naive majority including censors on this site were not prepared to listen.
    Yes Obama is worse than Bush. . At least with Bush who knew what to expect. With Obama we are still expecting.

  2. The Bush-Obama administrations are a continuum.

  3. Shaming:America&israel lives from OPEX illegal dealz

  4. Interesting new tidbit on the question of whether or not he is in fact as bad:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/d

    The reaction by the interviewer is pretty priceless :)

  5. Paxman is always like that.

  6. [...] More or less, says Anthony Gregory. Progressives need to get over their Obama fetish. [...]

  7. No doubt Obama is worse than Bush. He is worse for not prosecuting Bush for torture and war crimes. But of course, he is a criminal himself-drone attacks, kidnapping, torture, murder.Night Raids, killing some and kidnapping others. Logically, the rest join the resistence to get the hated occupiers out. Obama has said several times that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. But the CIA can´t find any evidence for that claim. That leaves two possibilities: Is he crazy/bonkers like Palin or evil ?

  8. I agree 100% with Claus Hamle. Obama has refused to prosecute clear cases of war crimes. He is, if anything, more under the control of the Israeli loyalists than Bush was. But really it is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. Both Obama and Bush betrayed the American people. Both have crimes against the American people and both need to be indicted and tried.
    I am not a lawyer so I do not know what route, if any, is possible, when the Attorney General of the U.S. is a coward. How shameful to be a yes man, a fawner, a lick spittle, a traitor the the people he is supposed to represent.
    Hermes Trismegistus

  9. All of the above : totally agree; the one thing that mass murderer obomber bests mass murderer bush at : obomber is way more despicable ! The lies, the total hypocrisy, like sic, Nobel, joke, peace prize !

  10. In the old days of prizefighting, there used to be a term called a "ringer" that referred to a boxer who was paid to throw a fight.

    In retrospect, after Obama takes the blame for currency collapse & a MIdeast mess that has only just begun, even those who acknowledge the 2008 momentum for reform that Obama successfully diffused, not to mention the legal consequences for Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rove/Gonzales/Bush that Obama successfully defused, will not be able to acknowledge Rove's masterpiece.

    Rove's greatest strategy has always been to choose his party's opponents. And then to play dumb, which appeals to liberals' snobbery.

    Barack Obama was groomed as a Cheney Sleeper Cell from the beginning. But when confronted with any possibility of the Chicago Black Sox of 1919, liberals can only gape in denial: "Say it ain't so, Joe!"

Leave a Reply