Matt Barganier - Antiwar.com Blog

On Sunday, Glenn Greenwald demolished the pro-surge scam that Michael O’Hanlon and Ken Pollack have been trying to pull for the last couple of weeks. After Greenwald’s evisceration of these con men, one would think that the matter was settled, that anyone with a reputation to maintain would sooner peddle Nigerian investment opportunities on national television than so much as whisper the names O’Hanlon and Pollack in public.

Ah, but one would misjudge the shameless, pathetic little worm that is Bill Kristol. Granted, Kristol doesn’t have much of a reputation to maintain: his claim to “public intellectual” status is based solely on his frequent Fox News appearances and his editing of such heavyweights as Stephen Hayes and Stephen Comrade Sandalio Suleyman Ahmad al-Kosovi Shaka Zulu Schwartz. Still, even Kristol must have been slightly embarrassed when Jon Stewart instantly shot down his invocation of the Look! Even war critics say the surge is working! talking point on last night’s Daily Show. (It’s about 2:30 into this clip.)

Nucking Futs, or Crazy Like a Fox?

Ladies and gentlemen, the Israel Lobby.

Rapture Ready: The Unauthorized Christians United for Israel Tour from huffpost and Vimeo.

Via David Weigel.

Give It to the Soft Boy

Over the years our Viewpoints section has featured some interesting essays by artists of various sorts, including Monty Python‘s Terry Jones and chef-turned-author Anthony Bourdain. One piece I wish we had excerpted was this bit by English musician Robyn Hitchcock from late 2002 (back when people like Randy Barnett, Glenn Reynolds, and Andrew Sullivan were pissing themselves over Saddam’s unmanned aerial vehicles of doom). Hitchcock isn’t a hyperpolitical do-gooder, but he did pen a great antiwar song back in 1980, the punky, acerbic “I Wanna Destroy You.” From his Slate diary entry of Dec. 9, 2002:

7:07 a.m. Grey dawn. The silhouettes of bare trees slowly take shape against a sky several degrees darker than the porridge that I have just eaten. The branches, and the twigs that grow from them, wave in the freezing air. From my window I can see the shapes of people scuttling along the path in the nearby park, followed by the brake lights of the Civil Defence trucks.

It has been several hours since the last Iraqi air raid. We are lucky, I suppose, here in West London, that the majority of collateral damage has been at Heathrow Airport, 15 miles away and now, obviously, uninhabited. Furthermore, the immense improvements in the homing devices in unmanned missiles since the V2 rockets that hit us at the end of W2 (the last time Britain suffered air raids) have meant that, barring the odd stray bomb pulverizing a mall or side street, the devastation has been confined to the former airport.

At this stage, the bombing is largely for show. Britain is taking it on the chin; it is only the older people who remember the last time we were attacked who seem extremely upset. When the first Iraqi missiles struck, before the reintroduction here of petrol rationing, many families would actually drive out to Heathrow to watch the gradual demolition of this once-flourishing metropolis. When I say families, I mean mostly the men. Security, too, has been blasÃ© by World War II standards. Today’s smart missile can find you whether you are there or not: This time around, there’s no black-out. Getting into my office this morning and switching on the light hasn’t provoked any hassle from the wardens.

Uh-ohâ€”either the tube-trains have woken up, or that was a stray coming down. I felt the house flicker just a moment in shock, then go back exactly the way it was. Hopefully it won’t wake MichÃ¨le upstairs. I can hear Figgy jump off the chair outside my door, where I saw her sleeping on my crushed velvet trousers when I came in here with my tea. What amazes me is that I’m not more terrified. As MichÃ¨le said, it’s scary what you can adjust to.

Why, oh why, did the Iraqis refuse to believe us when we showed them, beyond doubt, that we do not have weapons of mass destruction? Every cupboard and cellar door was opened wide for their inspectors. To date, less than a thousand people have been killed here, according to the Daily Expressâ€”but what happens when the sites are set on Central London?

The rumor is that Britain does possess some kind of nuclear or biological bomb, but that Downing Street will not deploy it until (or preferably unless) Saddam Hussein orders an attack on Buckingham Palace.

… Sorry, where was I? Daydreaming again! Oh, yes. â€¦

Finally, an Alternative to Peace and Freedom!

So there’s a running debate in libertarian circles about whether Randy Barnett’s a libertarian or not, and it’s getting old. This is a superficially free country; Barnett and his buddies can employ any nomenclature they like. Barnett does seem to be true blue on all the issues critical to neolibertarians — some pot for every chickenhawk and a meth lab in every garage — and perhaps anyone who bats above .500 on a given list of public policies should be called a libertarian. Hmm, he’s for a liberal application of the biggest, most destructive government program around — but he’s really solid on a toddler’s right to pornography, so we’ll call it even. Whatever floats your boat, dude.

What bothers me is the notion that Barnett’s recent Wall Street Journal piece credibly represents anything like libertarianism. Even putting philosophical matters to the side, I defy anyone who doesn’t watch Fox News 24/7 to read Barnett’s op-ed without wincing. At this moment, when most Americans have finally pulled their heads out of their hindquarters to oppose the Iraq war and occupation, Barnett counsels libertarians, the vast majority of whom have opposed the war all along, to jump on the pro-war bandwagon! For practical political reasons, no less!

It would be a shame if this misinterpretation [that libertarians uniformly oppose the war on libertarian grounds] inhibited a wider acceptance of the libertarian principles that would promote the general welfare of the American people.

Yes, it sure would suck if the majority of Americans suspected us of sharing their thoughts on a matter of great import.

And try holding down your breakfast as you witness the lap dance Barnett gives Rudy Giuliani:

During that debate, the riveting exchange between Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul about whether American foreign policy provoked the 9/11 attack raised the visibility of both candidates. When Mr. Paul, a libertarian, said that the 9/11 attack happened “because we’ve been over there. We’ve been bombing Iraq for 10 years,” Mr. Giuliani’s retort–that this was the first time he had heard that “we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. . . . and I’ve heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11”–sparked a spontaneous ovation from the audience. It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president.

Articulate? That thuggish, ignorant non-response was articulate?

If I were in my teens or early twenties and searching for a political identity, and I had a typical young person’s knowledge of political theory, this would send me running in disgust from libertarianism. Barnett’s op-ed merely confirms the left-right caricature of libertarianism as a trivia-obsessed offshoot of the GOP — and places support for a stupid, immoral, unpopular war front and center! What’s not to hate?