Chris Christie: GOP libertarianism on national security a “dangerous thought”

posted at 10:01 pm on July 25, 2013 by Mary Katharine Ham

Oh yes, consider the hostile game of pong that shall be the 2016 GOP national security debate joined. Bounce. Over to you, Rand.

ASPEN, Colo. — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Thursday offered a clear broadside against Republicans drifting toward a more libertarian view of foreign policy, lumping Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in with them and suggesting they explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The House earlier this week narrowly voted against a reduction in funding for the National Security Agency, as libertarian-leaning members from both sides joined together to vote for the amendment.

“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said.

Asked whether he includes Paul — a fellow potential 2016 presidential candidate — in his criticism, Christie didn’t back down.

“You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this,” he said. “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. … I’m very nervous about the direction this is moving in.”

I believe I’m paraphrasing Ace of Spades when I say, shortly after 9/11 there was a group of voters that were understandably transformed from hawks (or even doves) into super-hawks. These days, there aren’t as many super-hawks to rally. Christie’s way of putting this should be, according to conventional wisdom, quite effective. A harkening back to the pain of 9/11, an invocation of a personal connection to its victims, and a call for caution in dismantling what worked to protect us during the Bush administration. I’m mindful of all those points, and yet, still not convinced that collecting metadata on every phone call of every American is the right balance of civil liberties and security. There’s plenty of evidence there are others who would like to see more “caution” in negotiating exactly how we secure ourselves. For instance, hmmm.

But how many of them are in Iowa, or New Hampshire? And, how would this “dangerous thought” fare against a Democrat?

In a hypothetical head-to-head contest with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who is the clear front-runner with support from over 50 percent of Democratic primary voters in the poll, Paul falls far short of victory: he trails Clinton 39 percent to 47 percent. Rubio would do slightly better, trailing 40 percent to 45 percent.

Christie does pick interesting issues on which to reinforce his righty bonafides, huh?

Update: Allahpundit reminds me of the last volley in this game.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Over

Bmore on July 26, 2013 at 1:41 PM

I think you’re ascribing a complex, elaborate theory dependent on many parts to a relatively simple event. If it was done maliciously, certain parties LET IT HAPPEN. Look at the Able Danger scandal, when they had all the hijackers fingered, but the assistant DA let them scatter off. Pitchforker on July 26, 2013 at 11:53 AM

I don’t think permissive will was a part of this. Letting it happen, or covering it up, either one, make one an accomplice and liable to being charged with and executed for mass murder and/or treason.

Akzed on July 26, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Jamie Gorelick’s Wall brought us 9-11. Cripple the NSA and you will inflict far worse than 9-11 on America

Mike OMalley on July 25, 2013 at 11:18 PM

Jamie Gorelick’s wall prevented competing agencies from sharing information about threats

In 911 that prevent one agency from sharing suspicious moves with another. IMHO sharing would have helped because if the first agency refused to take seriously the suspicious evidence, maybe someone in the second agency would have acted

I believe it was to our advantage to have competing security agencies, with overlapping goals, to increase the odds of recognizing danger

Because Gorelick’s ‘Wall’ was given the blame for 911, the big government wonks seized on it as proof that all security must be consolidated into one big giant dollar sucking stagnant and corrupt top down security monolith called Homeland Security

It still grates me they chose a marxist title ‘homeland security’ when the word ‘homeland’ was no part of the American lexicon – in the hood, or at Martha’s Vineyard.

Now the monster is out of control. Sharing? Get real. It is now an instrument of political intimidation. Competing agencies served to embarass the agency that ignored danger, but competing agencies were also checks on each other.

When Bush fell for the consolidation of security, I felt he was either a total fool, or as corrupt as the other side. From what I see of the RINOs defending the data mining, I am moving to the latter explanation.

I dislike libertarians for their goal of a drug and decadence open society, and for their dislike of a strong military. However the libertarians are right on this.

We are in big trouble if we do not get someone in, and I will take a libertarian, who will break up the centralized security monopoly, and stop unwarranted seizure of private data

Look at Christie. This bloated potentate wants to be your master. He wants to own your private history and data, in case you are a threat – to him. Threats are subjective.

entagor on July 26, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Libertarians want to ban Sizzler?

EddieC on July 26, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Welcome to Zimbabwe.

Schadenfreude on July 26, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Bmore, please photoshop this, but make the bldg. Lady Liberty and the guy obama.

Schadenfreude on July 26, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Sorry, here’s the link, Bmore.

Schadenfreude on July 26, 2013 at 2:51 PM

“As a former prosecutor who was appointed by President George W. Bush on Sept. 10, 2001, I just want us to be really cautious, because this strain of libertarianism that’s going through both parties right now and making big headlines, I think, is a very dangerous thought,” Christie said.

That’s telling – “libertarianism” is the only real threat to the DC power establishment (Dems and Repubs). So now “we” target them. They did this to the Tea Party first.

Saltyron on July 26, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Chris Christie is more irrelevant than Jon Huntsman. Goodbye!

ModerateMan on July 26, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Chris Christie is just showing some leg for the Bill Kristol crowd.

Punchenko on July 26, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Bmore, photoshop this, with obama doing Lady Liberty.

Schadenfreude on July 26, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Wow, comments disappear and appear on HA…now the NSA has them, now they don’t.

Who runs the place and how secure is it?

Schadenfreude on July 26, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Good grief.

Chris Christie is right to not wanting the NSA de-fanged in its ability to help protect Americans, but has he not been paying attention to the last four years? One man’t tool is another man’s weapon against his political foes.

Full disclosure: I consider myself to be a libertarian conservative, and I don’t consider my blend of right-of-center thinking to be detrimental to the survival of the republic.

Never, ever let your heart eat your brain. And as a retired Army dude, I think I earned the right to say that there are limits as to how much power should be delegated to preserve liberties and defend freedom.

The last time I checked, this isn’t WWIII, nor is there a neutron star on a collision course with Earth. Just saying…

itzWicks on July 26, 2013 at 3:47 PM

I think that Christ Christie has spent too much time drinking Kool Aid, and reading the “Communist Manifesto” and “Mien Kampf” and not enough time reading “The Declaration Of Independence” and, “The Constitution of the United States”. What fools these mortals elect!

savage24 on July 26, 2013 at 3:49 PM

TREY GOWDY…….squish!!

PappyD61 on July 26, 2013 at 4:00 PM

No, Mr Fat Chris Christie (hey I’m fat too so I can rip him) our desire to police the world is what’s DANGEROUS and LEADS TO TERRORISM. The defense of civil liberties is the essential foundation of a free society and should not be given up because America can’t resist the temptation to police the world and create enemies abroad. It’s this creation of enemies abroad which LEAD TO THE DANGERS OF TERRORISM, not the defense of our once unalienable liberties!

DOWN WITH THE CHRISTIE.

fatlibertarianinokc on July 26, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Christ Christie…….angry cream puff!

PappyD61 on July 26, 2013 at 4:04 PM

He took the donuts out of his mouth long enough to speak?

bloviator on July 26, 2013 at 4:14 PM

ASPEN, Colo. — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Thursday offered a clear broadside against Republicans drifting toward a more libertarian view of foreign policy, lumping Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) in with them and suggesting they explain their position to victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

Better yet, lets explain how snooping on every American improved our security. Lets start with Boston.

DDay on July 26, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Nice hysterical strawman you got there.

……..

Shit, that lunatic ‘Stoic Patriot’ conceptually supports the Federal government installing cameras in every bedroom in America to – somehow – prevent adultery, rape, and child abuse…’cuz, like, those only happen in bedrooms and the Founding Fathers totally had bedcams in mind as permissible intrusions when they wrote the Fourth Amendment.

Resist We Much on July 26, 2013 at 8:32 AM

Got irony? In particular, consider “’cuz, like, those only happen in bedrooms.” I never said any such thing.

My point was that when you call an area off-limit, people will shift their illegal activities and misdeeds into those realms. Consider human trafficking. Hell, right now there is a story in the blog section on Ariel Castro, who kidnapped women and raped them repeatedly. If we assume that we could conduct surveillance that was not costly, not disruptive, and was effective that could flush out guys like that, would that not be a good thing?

Consider the case of Rhode Island. Until 2009, it was perfectly legal to purchase the services of a prostitute in the state so long as it was done indoors for a girl as young as 16. Now Rhode Island has banned the practice. Would cameras in the bedroom allow us to enforce that law? Yup.

But again, let’s move beyond the bedroom, because evidently you think that I was contending that bad things only happen there. Let’s consider the case of George Zimmerman. I happen to agree with the Zimmerman verdict, not just because I think there was reasonable doubt, but because I actually think he was innocent. Otherwise Trayvon Martin would have injuries elsewhere than his hands (from beating Zimmerman) and the lone gunshot wound.

However, if you pressed me whether or not I knew for certain whether Zimmerman is innocent, I would say no. Tell me, would it improve or harm the justice system when it comes to verdicts if there was an outdoor camera mounted on a home or a street sign that captured the event? I contend that it would be better.

Stoic Patriot on July 26, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Stoic Patriot on July 26, 2013 at 4:26 PM

I can’t tell if you are pure evil or just a few candles short of a birthday cake…maybe both?

iwasbornwithit on July 26, 2013 at 4:32 PM

I can’t tell if you are pure evil or just a few candles short of a birthday cake…maybe both?

iwasbornwithit on July 26, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Maybe neither. I never thought it was either evil or crazy to want law enforcement to have as much information as possible for the purpose of doing its job.

Stoic Patriot on July 26, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Maybe neither. I never thought it was either evil or crazy to want law enforcement to have as much information as possible for the purpose of doing its job.

Stoic Patriot on July 26, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Knowledge is power.

Do we really want the authorities to have as much power as possible?

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Knowledge is power.

Do we really want the authorities to have as much power as possible?

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 4:41 PM

That’s what this really comes down to I think: do you trust the government? And naturally, people trust those who they agree with, and distrust those who they disagree with, since trust is based on the character of individuals, not position or title.

Ultimately, I’m willing to support granting the authorities power, so long as there do exist checks and balances (i.e., someone to tell Eric Holder that no, he can’t enforce struck-down sections of the VRA) and so long as I think there exist appropriate disciplinary measures against those who might abuse their power.

The point that I have made repeatedly is that you should not let the abuse of government authority cause you to remove the ability of government to properly exercise its authority. Instead, oversight and disciplinary action is what’s necessary, and if you can’t trust the government to do that, then you should really abolish it.

Stoic Patriot on July 26, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Er yeah…

go ahead nominate Obama’s boyfriend….

I’ll vote for Michelle Obama or Hillary! Clinton before I vote for another RINO sell out Republican ever.

I donated to McCain whom I loathe, I gave more to Romney but as God is my witness two in a row is enough…

nominate a Conservative or I join the Straight Ticket D 125 MPH over the cliff instead of 45MPH club.

harlekwin15 on July 26, 2013 at 5:02 PM

Right out of McCain’s playbook. Attack conservatives and allies while propping up Lord Obama.

Valiant on July 26, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Go to hell Christie.

TX-96 on July 26, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Well, if 53% of the American people are actually behind bringing criminal charges against Rand Paul’s hero Edward Snowden, then maybe we have not turned into a nation of neo isolationists just yet. I think Rand Paul is either naive or dishonest. I am not sure which.

It is interesting however that so many people on the right are willing to start sounding like Code Pink or something. I thought that kind of fraternization between the parties was frowned upon by true conservatives.

Terrye on July 26, 2013 at 5:32 PM

TerryE,

I have little use for neo-isolationism of course Joisey Buddah says there is no difference between Bush and Ogabe on the wars…and if that is true it is not to Bush’s credit…

not thinking we need to be Radical Islam’s air wing every time they want to topple a thug to be the new thug is not Code Pinkoism…

name one situation Ogabe has made better with his “illegal” elective “wars”(as defined by his voters)

I am sorta getting tired of helping theocrats to power.

harlekwin15 on July 26, 2013 at 5:36 PM

It is interesting however that so many people on the right are willing to start sounding like Code Pink or something. I thought that kind of fraternization between the parties was frowned upon by true conservatives.

Terrye on July 26, 2013 at 5:32 PM

The Code Pink groups are still on the leftist reservation alongside most of the GOP leadership. Conservatives are sick and tired of the domestic socialist policies and overseas moral crusading that people like you support so earnestly. Libertarians at least want fiscal restraint and an end to foreign interventions. Two out of three ain’t bad.

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Well, if 53% of the American people are actually behind bringing criminal charges against Rand Paul’s hero Edward Snowden, then maybe we have not turned into a nation of neo isolationists just yet. I think Rand Paul is either naive or dishonest. I am not sure which.

It is interesting however that so many people on the right are willing to start sounding like Code Pink or something. I thought that kind of fraternization between the parties was frowned upon by true conservatives.

Terrye on July 26, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Terrye, you need to start reading some Russell Kirk, the so-called FATHER OF TRUE CONSERVATIVES. Turn off the talk radio.

Here’s a little preview:

In the affairs of nations, the American conservative feels that his country ought to set an example to the world, but ought not to try to remake the world in its image. It is a law of politics, as well as of biology, that every living thing loves above all else—even above its own life—its distinct identity, which sets it off from all other things. The conservative does not aspire to domination of the world, nor does he relish the prospect of a world reduced to a single pattern of government and civilization. –Russell Kirk

Pitchforker on July 26, 2013 at 5:46 PM

How is the Greenwald-Snowden NSA Squirrel Chase coming along?

Because in the meanwhile:

Civil servants at [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] CMS did what they could to meet the statutory deadline​—​they threw together an overly simplistic system without adequate privacy safeguards. The system’s lack of any substantial verification of the user would leave members of the public open to identity theft, lost periods of health insurance coverage, and exposure of address for victims of domestic abuse and others. CMS then tried to deflect attention from its shortcomings by falsely asserting that it had done so to satisfy White House directives about making electronic services user-friendly.

In reality, the beta version jammed through a few months ago will, unless delayed and fixed, inflict on the public the most widespread violation of the Privacy Act in our history. Almost a year ago both I and the IRS commissioner raised strong legal objections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which has statutory oversight responsibilities for the Privacy Act. As of the time of my resignation as commissioner of Social Security last February, OMB lawyers could not bring themselves to bless a portal in which I could change Donald Trump’s health insurance and he could change mine.

Incredibly, at the time of our appeal, no senior legal official at HHS had reviewed the legal issues raised by this feature of the ACA. It is my understanding that OMB, despite the recent furor over this administration’s lack of respect for the privacy of citizens, has ordered agencies to bulldoze through the Privacy Act

and not even a FISA court review in sight!

Privacy Be Damned
The imminent health-exchange scandal.

Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Chris Christie: NEOCON.

Neocon-ism is SO OVER. First of all, we can no longer afford these poseurs to conservativism who are really big government, interventionist PROGRESSIVES.

Second of all, Libertarianism IS the true conservatism. Christie doesn’t have the faintest clue what Libertarian principles are; but he doesn’t care either. He only cares about practicing his PROGRESSIVE DEMOGOGUERY.

Thanks, Fat Man; But No Thanks. I won’t be casting a vote for YOU, like EVAH.

mountainaires on July 26, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Go to hell Christie.

TX-96 on July 26, 2013 at 5:30 PM

This.

mountainaires on July 26, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Chris Christie passed a progressive gun control law in New Jersey so he could pander to liberals.

Done. Toast. Over.

mountainaires on July 26, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Christie Clown.

Sherman1864 on July 26, 2013 at 6:23 PM

God, we’re in trouble.

rrpjr on July 26, 2013 at 6:43 PM

This.

mountainaires on July 26, 2013 at 6:04 PM

This^

Akzed on July 26, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Second of all, Libertarianism IS the true conservatism. Christie doesn’t have the faintest clue what Libertarian principles are; but he doesn’t care either. He only cares about practicing his PROGRESSIVE DEMOGOGUERY.

Thanks, Fat Man; But No Thanks. I won’t be casting a vote for YOU, like EVAH.

mountainaires on July 26, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Really? Libertarians are intellectual heirs of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, just like America’s Progressives. The spirit of Citizen Genêt informs America’s Libertarians. The Neo-Cons are intellectual heirs of Aquinas and Edmund Burke. Neo-Cons are true conservatives.

Like Chris Christie I was raised in New Jersey. We share a common Roman Catholic background. If I had to classify Christ Christie politically I think I’d update an older New Jersey political category and classify Gov. Christie as a Next-Generation Reagan Democrat.

My advice? Knock off the mockery. You discredit yourselves. Respect Christie for the damage he can do to you on a fusion ticket in 2016. Christie’s got a lot more on the ball than it appears Rand Paul does.

Did not Rand Paul asked the despicable Eric Holder if it US Federal government had the legal authority to kill, via drone strike, a U.S. citizen on American soil?

Such a clown! It is a shame General & Pres. Grant is not alive to answer Senator Paul’s silly question. General Grant’s Union gunboats lobbed over 22,000 shells into the Vicksburg and General Grant’s Union army artillery fire was even heavier.

Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Well I can’t stomach reading through page of these comments.
Primer:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

A search that’s reasonable of anyone’s communications or personal effects without a warrant is against the 4th.
And note there must be probable cause for this warrant to be issued and only certain things are allowed to be searched as specified in the warrant.
I mean really, there is not much to add to that to make it any clearer.
Those of you who think it is OK to spy on Americans in this country or anywhere else without probable cause and a warrant are fascists, communists, whatever the eff else you’d like to think.
But don’t ever think you are on the side of Liberty & our Founders when you say you agree with the likes of a man like Christie.
You win a war by fighting it right & you do not stay there for years to build hospitals & $hit. You tear the $hit out of the place & you leave it in a heaping pile of rubble & let the *&^%$^%$# dig themselves out.
You quit playing footsies with these tin horn dictators & stay as neutral as possible the rest of the time.
There was a time when I used to think not that long ago when oh yeah it’s reasonable to back this country & that country to hedge our bets a little so attacks do not happen here.
But the older I get & the more I see I realize the best course of action is that when you go to war you fracking finish it right & you stay out of other people’s business unless it’s an emergency worth getting involved in: like saving AMericans.
Frack everybody else. Really.

I’ll tell you this much: More and more Americans agree with me and say ‘NO MORE NATION-BUILDING.’
Lastly, I agree 100% with Ben Franklin and I will not trade my liberty for your fake security.
Resist We Much on July 26, 2013 at 6:22 AM

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!

Observe what is being written in this very thread and it should become obvious that Libertarianism in the realm of national security is a kin to walking in front of a firing squad and pulling a sack over one’s head.
Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 12:30 AM

That’s what we’ve been doing by getting our noses into everyone’s business. Them the rest of the world starve & kill each other. We’re physically separated from most of them & if we were to rightfully secure our borders we’d be safer than we are now.

When one is dyslexic immediate proofreading and spell-check can be of limited help because the mind of a dyslexic imposes the intended correct spelling on the visual image of the unintended incorrect spelling on the page.
Mike OMalley on July 25, 2013 at 11:59 PM

And this? I have had had many dyslexic students. They can spell if they put their minds to it & so can you. Typos I understand but if you’re going to use this as an excuse for them, you’ll get no sympathy from me.

Data mining is the same as searching all cars on the road to look for bad behavior, or randomly entering homes, to find if there may be undiscovered crimes
Random searches and data mining are forms of government intimidation
entagor on July 25, 2013 at 10:52 PM

and THIS!!!!!!!
And DUI checkpoints and things like that are in this category as well.
IF you are not under suspicion bcs someone has evidence or PROBABLE CAUSE that you may have done something wrong, then guess what? They don’t have a right to violate your rights!
My God I cannot believe such stupid people exist.
We were in possession of the greatest country the world has known & we have pi$$ed it away by kibitzing $hit to death & trading our liberties for what mamby pamby equivocaters think is some kind of safety.
Shame on every single damn one of you who believes violating the 4th in ANY way is necessary to stop terrorism.

Badger40 on July 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM

describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[1]

A search that’s UNreasonable of anyone’s communications or personal effects without a warrant is against the 4th.

That’s what I meant.

Badger40 on July 26, 2013 at 9:11 PM

In the affairs of nations, the American conservative feels that his country ought to set an example to the world, but ought not to try to remake the world in its image. It is a law of politics, as well as of biology, that every living thing loves above all else—even above its own life—its distinct identity, which sets it off from all other things. The conservative does not aspire to domination of the world, nor does he relish the prospect of a world reduced to a single pattern of government and civilization. –Russell Kirk

Pitchforker on July 26, 2013 at 5:46 PM

This is so well said.
I agree with every single word of this.

Badger40 on July 26, 2013 at 9:16 PM

The Code Pink groups are still on the leftist reservation alongside most of the GOP leadership. Conservatives are sick and tired of the domestic socialist policies and overseas moral crusading that people like you support so earnestly. Libertarians at least want fiscal restraint and an end to foreign interventions. Two out of three ain’t bad.

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 5:39 PM

+1

I’m personally tired of neoconservatives and am ready to boot them from the party. I think it’s best, for everyone, that they go home to the Democrats and push utopia there.

Punchenko on July 26, 2013 at 9:34 PM

Mark Levin is skewering Christie for his libertarian bashing as I type.

I’m with Levin 100%. Christie sux.

petefrt on July 26, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 12:30 AM

That’s what we’ve been doing by getting our noses into everyone’s business. Them the rest of the world starve & kill each other. We’re physically separated from most of them & if we were to rightfully secure our borders we’d be safer than we are now.

Badger40 on July 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM

Dude:

It doesn’t matter what Ron Paul told you, “nation building” was never the primary focus of NeoCon foreign policy. Protecting America was (and is) the primary NeoCon foreign policy concern. I suggest you read essays on foreign policy from the 1980s by arch-NeoCon and faithful Reaganite Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick.

Tell me Mr. Badger40, how many minutes “separate” New York City from a sea launched nuclear weapon launch from international waters 200 some miles outside of Greater New York Harbor?

Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 10:03 PM

It doesn’t matter what Ron Paul told you, “nation building” was never the primary focus of NeoCon foreign policy. Protecting America was (and is) the primary NeoCon foreign policy concern.

Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 10:03 PM

2003 speech.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/27/usa.iraq2

A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America’s interests in security, and America’s belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq.

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein — but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us.

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more.

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause.) The nation of Iraq — with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people — is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. (Applause.)

And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.

Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state.

Without this outside support for terrorism, Palestinians who are working for reform and long for democracy will be in a better position to choose new leaders. (Applause.) True leaders who strive for peace; true leaders who faithfully serve the people. A Palestinian state must be a reformed and peaceful state that abandons forever the use of terror. (Applause.)

George Bush

They actually believed this silly nonsense.

As far as protecting America, if that was their primary purpose then why didn’t they immediately withdraw after they had secured potential weapons sites?

They spent more money and lives in the occupation than they did in the invasion. Why did they continue to occupy Iraq if nation building wasn’t one of their primary aims?

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 10:18 PM

Mike OMalley on July 25, 2013 at 11:59 PM

And this? I have had had (SIC) many dyslexic students. They can spell if they put their minds to it & so can you. Typos I understand but if you’re going to use this as an excuse for them, you’ll get no sympathy from me. Badger40 on July 26, 2013 at 9:10 PM

” I have had had (SIC) many dyslexic students. They can spell if they put their minds to it & so can you.”

.

LOLZ, don’t tell me Mr. Badger40, you are a public school teacher?

.

Heartless Dude: I was unable to read a single word until I was 9-1/2 years old. My private reading specialist told my mother that my disability was so severe I’d never ever be able to read because I was unable to associate the component letters of a word with phonetic sounds or with the word itself. But I was so determined to read she worked with me anyway and taught me to read by memorizing the visual images of a huge vocabulary of whole words. It took me a year to memorize enough words to be able to read and understand paragraphs. But I worked at it afternoons and evenings after regular school, day by day, for hours and hours and hours. My determination paid off, as a rising 5th grader I read the Deerslayer, by James Fenimore Cooper, cover to cover as Summer reading.

Today I’m a well paid and accomplished professional who reads and writes for a living. The dyslexia remains and I continue to have characteristic difficulties proofreading my work. But in a professional environment I make it work.

I shall pass of your sympathy Mr. Badger40. It seems that I was fortunate never to have had you as a teacher.

Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 10:45 PM

They spent more money and lives in the occupation than they did in the invasion. Why did they continue to occupy Iraq if nation building wasn’t one of their primary aims?

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 10:18 PM

For an answer to you question you would do well to read

War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism, By Douglas Feith

and this academic work:
Rush to Judgment: George W. Bush, the War on Terror, and His Critics By Dr. Stephen Knott

and as for why no wise man should ever trust the UK Guardian to tell the truth about Pres. Bush and the GWoT you can read this academic work:

Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age (Communication, Media, and Politics) by Dr. Jim A. Kuypers, an associate professor of political communication at Virginia Tech

Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 11:00 PM

and as for why no wise man should ever trust the UK Guardian to tell the truth about Pres. Bush and the GWoT you can read this academic work:

Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 11:00 PM

You think they altered the text of the speech he gave?

I remember that speech and it sounds pretty much like what Bush was saying at the time.

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 11:06 PM

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/147656/why-did-we-go-war/mona-charen

It may have been impossibly idealistic and even naïve to entertain such hopes (though I don’t think so), but an ambitious freedom agenda was always a part of the justification for the Iraq War – and that’s something that everyone who argues the Bush “lied us into war” is purposely ignoring.

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 11:09 PM

Can this piece of crap get any Fatter?

Tbone McGraw on July 26, 2013 at 11:20 PM

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 10:18 PM

The primary reasons for the War in Iraq were addressed in the Congressional authorization for the war. They include:

Iraq’s noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.

Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction “capabilities”, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a “threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region.”

Iraq’s “brutal repression of its civilian population.”

Iraq’s “capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people”.

Iraq’s hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush, (support for AQ in the Mogadishu attacks against the US military), and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.

Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, were known to have been in Iraq.

Iraq’s continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including anti-United States terrorist organizations …

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, made it the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.

.

By 2007 and 2008 and afterward I read captured Iraqi Intelligence Service files and thousands of pages of CIA reports (the stuff MSM lied about over and over again). Saddam had maintained significant prohibited WMD capabilities, Saddam funded a Taliban faction before 9/11, Saddam had a decade long working relationship with elements of Al Queda, Saddam was using the UN and smugglers associated with elements associated with AQ to fund Saddam’s sanction era WMD development programs and Saddam almost certainly transported significant WMD capability to Syria in the weeks before the invasion.

Nation building was never the primary reason for the Bush Administration to invade Iraq what ever lies MSM and Ron Paul saw fit to tell.

Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 11:42 PM

Nation building was never the primary reason for the Bush Administration to invade Iraq what ever lies MSM and Ron Paul saw fit to tell.

Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 11:42 PM

So Bush was lying about it being a primary reason and so is National Review?

So why did they remain in Iraq?

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 11:46 PM

You think they altered the text of the speech he gave?

I remember that speech and it sounds pretty much like what Bush was saying at the time.

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 11:06 PM

If you want to know, if your really honestly want to know and you are not just posturing to brush off what you don’t want to hear? Then read the book I recommended:

Bush’s War: Media Bias and Justifications for War in a Terrorist Age (Communication, Media, and Politics) by Dr. Jim A. Kuypers, an associate professor of political communication at Virginia Tech

It hard to imagine that you are going to take my word for it.

Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 11:47 PM

So Bush was lying about it being a primary reason and so is National Review?

So why did they remain in Iraq?

sharrukin on July 26, 2013 at 11:46 PM

Forgive my frustration but are you paying attention? Nation building was never a primary reason for the Invasion of Iraq whatever Ron Paul told you. The reasons for staying in Iraq after the successful invasion were complex and beyond the scope of what Mona Charen (Mona Charen mind you) was capable of explaining or attempted to explain at that time.

Frankly Richard Fernandez over at the Belmont Club has almost a preternatural insight into to Iraq War and its aftermath. I recommend Fernandez to you. I would never recommend Mona Charen to anyone as an authority on the War in Iraq. Why are you wasting my time citing Mona Charen to me when I am citing academic works and Bush Administration Neo-Con DoD insiders for you?

Mike OMalley on July 27, 2013 at 12:00 AM

Then read the book I recommended:

Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 11:47 PM

I am not going to purchase and read a book because you cannot make your point in the comments thread.

Do you think they altered the speech?

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

Did they alter it here as well?

George Bush put that speech in his own book…

We Will Prevail: President George W. Bush on War, Terrorism and Freedom.

Has he been brainwashed, or is it that he did think that nation building was a linchpin of his policies?

Talk about brushing off what you don’t want to hear.

sharrukin on July 27, 2013 at 12:01 AM

I recommend Fernandez to you.

Mike OMalley on July 27, 2013 at 12:00 AM

I recommend George Bush as somewhat of an authority on what George Bush’s motives were for the invasion.

sharrukin on July 27, 2013 at 12:08 AM

I am not going to purchase and read a book because you cannot make your point in the comments thread.

Do you think they altered the speech?

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030226-11.html

Did they alter it here as well?

George Bush put that speech in his own book…

We Will Prevail: President George W. Bush on War, Terrorism and Freedom.

Has he been brainwashed, or is it that he did think that nation building was a linchpin of his policies?

Talk about brushing off what you don’t want to hear.

sharrukin on July 27, 2013 at 12:01 AM

Really now? You are not going to competently inform yourself … why?

And who? Mona Charen? Mona Charen! Good lord!

Forgive my reiteration but nation building was never a primary reason for the Invasion of Iraq whatever Ron Paul told you. The reasons for staying in Iraq after the successful invasion were complex and beyond the scope of what Mona Charen (Mona Charen mind you) was capable of explaining or attempted to explain at that time. Pres. Bush’s post war public addresses largely addressed post war strategic circumstances and Pres. Bush’s reasons for stay in Iraq after the successful invasion were complex and changed as strategic conditions changed as any reasonable man would expect.

.

Nation building was never a primary reason for the Invasion of Iraq.

Mike OMalley on July 27, 2013 at 12:17 AM

sharrukin on July 27, 2013 at 12:01 AM

The primary reasons for the invasion of Iraq, I quote Pres. Bush:

We meet here during a crucial period in the history of our nation, and of the civilized world. Part of that history was written by others; the rest will be written by us. (Applause.) On a September morning, threats that had gathered for years, in secret and far away, led to murder in our country on a massive scale. As a result, we must look at security in a new way, because our country is a battlefield in the first war of the 21st century.

We learned a lesson: The dangers of our time must be confronted actively and forcefully, before we see them again in our skies and in our cities. And we set a goal: we will not allow the triumph of hatred and violence in the affairs of men. (Applause.)

Our coalition of more than 90 countries is pursuing the networks of terror with every tool of law enforcement and with military power. We have arrested, or otherwise dealt with, many key commanders of al Qaeda. (Applause.) Across the world, we are hunting down the killers one by one. We are winning. And we’re showing them the definition of American justice. (Applause.) And we are opposing the greatest danger in the war on terror: outlaw regimes arming with weapons of mass destruction.

In Iraq, a dictator is building and hiding weapons that could enable him to dominate the Middle East and intimidate the civilized world — and we will not allow it. (Applause.) This same tyrant has close ties to terrorist organizations, and could supply them with the terrible means to strike this country — and America will not permit it. The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be ignored or wished away. The danger must be confronted. We hope that the Iraqi regime will meet the demands of the United Nations and disarm, fully and peacefully. If it does not, we are prepared to disarm Iraq by force. Either way, this danger will be removed. (Applause.)

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America’s interests in security, and America’s belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.) …

The safety of the American people depends on ending this direct and growing threat. Acting against the danger will also contribute greatly to the long-term safety and stability of our world. The current Iraqi regime has shown the power of tyranny to spread discord and violence in the Middle East. A liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions. America’s interests in security, and America’s belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq. (Applause.) …

) The passing of Saddam Hussein’s regime will deprive terrorist networks of a wealthy patron that pays for terrorist training, and offers rewards to families of suicide bombers. And other regimes will be given a clear warning that support for terror will not be tolerated. (Applause.)

President Discusses the Future of Iraq

These reasons coincide with the reasons given in my post above:

Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 11:42 PM

Mike OMalley on July 27, 2013 at 12:35 AM

President Discusses the Future of Iraq

These reasons coincide with the reasons given in my post above:

Mike OMalley on July 27, 2013 at 12:35 AM

It’s the same speech I posted and you have simply removed the nation building elements that you don’t want to acknowledge.

sharrukin on July 27, 2013 at 12:41 AM

sharrukin on July 27, 2013 at 12:01 AM

For the reasons for the post war occupation, I quote Pres. Bush:

Note Pres. Bush’s explicit comparison with the Third Reich and the Empire of Japan. If the US had sign a peace treaty with the Reich and the Empire after VE Day and VJ Day and withdrawn from Europe and Japan in 1945 the US would have been fighting a reinvigorated and rearmed Reich and a reinvigorated and rearmed Empire of Japan by the 1960′s. So it would have been if we had not stabilized Iraq. Mind you FDR did not go to war with the Empire of Japan because he wanted to nation build Japan. The same with Iraq whatever Ron Paul might have said.

Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more. America has made and kept this kind of commitment before — in the peace that followed a world war. After defeating enemies, we did not leave behind occupying armies, we left constitutions and parliaments. We established an atmosphere of safety, in which responsible, reform-minded local leaders could build lasting institutions of freedom. In societies that once bred fascism and militarism, liberty found a permanent home.

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause.) The nation of Iraq — with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people — is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. (Applause.)

Here is the limitation of the Pres. Bush’s scope of our involvement in Iraq that was dishonored by Paul Bremer, Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq.

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected. (Applause.)

President Discusses the Future of Iraq

To find out how Paul Bremer dishonored the charge placed upon him by Pres. Bush read the book I recommended to you above by Douglas Feith.

Mike OMalley on July 27, 2013 at 12:57 AM

We’ve had Fats Domino and Chubby Checker, so Chris Christie needs a catchy pop title too.

How about Pudgy Parcheesi?

Since he is the cheesiest RINO in the nation.

profitsbeard on July 27, 2013 at 1:33 AM

Chris Christie is just another blowhard pretend conservative like Lowell Weicker, who ran for Gov. of CT against the income tax, and as soon as he got elected, he promoted his pro-income tax opponent and rammed through the tax (one suspect “R” missed the vote strangely) despite protests by tens of thousands of duped citizens.

We see Christie’s soul and as far as his running for the White house, to once again seek a conservative “hero on a white horse” because of his pretend conservative blather, is to fit the description of insanity.

Maybe the McCain’s, Rubio’s, and their ilk haven’t taught us a thing about deceitful politicians…and then there’s Mr. Unity himself in the White House, Groan.

Don L on July 27, 2013 at 4:29 AM

If you are clueless about Libertarianism, read this:

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-07-26/libertarian-party-platform

mountainaires on July 27, 2013 at 8:28 AM

Chris Christie is just another blowhard pretend conservative like Lowell Weicker, … (one suspect “R” missed the vote strangely) … McCain’s, Rubio’s,…

Don L on July 27, 2013 at 4:29 AM

Perhaps Don, I have a better understanding of politics in New Jersey than most. You see Don in many if not most cases the real political affiliation at the state government level in New Jersey is (C). C = corrupt. Sometimes it is (RC) and more often it is (DC) more rarely is it (H) H = honest. Chris Christie is a rare bird in state level NJ politics (RH). The structures of New Jersey politics make it rather difficult for a reliable (R), an (H) or a (old fashioned Conservative) to successfully attain statewide office. Like him or not Chris Christie is likely that best Republicans and Conservatives are going to get out of New Jersey on a statewide level for a generation or two.

Be grateful for what you’ve got in New Jersey. Respect Christie for the damage he can do to you on a fusion ticket, and don’t under estimate Christie’s prowess as a honest politician.

Mike OMalley on July 27, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Real smart. Drive a wedge between conservatives and libertarians so the Republicans never win an election again. That’s some strategy.

dr.foo on July 27, 2013 at 8:34 AM

Chris Christie=The Fat Basturd of NJ also a dangerous thought….

rodguy911 on July 27, 2013 at 8:50 AM

If you are clueless about Libertarianism, read this:

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2013-07-26/libertarian-party-platform

mountainaires on July 27, 2013 at 8:28 AM

Thank you Mountainaires for the link. I’ll quote therefrom:

1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual’s right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

Really now! No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Really now! That’s the #1, primary, first principle of Libertarian governance! You guys really think that has a prayer of working in the face of the long harsh course of human history. It is hard to imagine you guys have thought this through. Now Nietzsche, he thought this through, at least better than the Libertarian leadership. So did Tolkien, one of the 20th century’s great anti-Neitzschean intellectuals.

I’ll share with you Tolkien’s insight. When it comes to governance Tolkien created a myth to instruct us: “And nine… nine rings were gifted to the race of men, who above all else, desire power.”

Mike OMalley on July 27, 2013 at 8:55 AM


Mike OMalley,

Clearly, you DID NOT READ THE ENTIRE PLATFORM. Therefore, you have conclusively proven your continuing ignorance. I am sorry that you think that reading one paragraph of an entire platform gives you special insight. Obviously, your education was lacking in instruction on critical thinking. I am at least grateful that you have read Lord of athe Rings. However, If you had read one chapter– or even one quote, that doesn’t qualify you to offer informed analysis of THAT either!

mountainaires on July 27, 2013 at 9:12 AM

The mission to destroy conservatism begins with attacking the IDEA of Liberty.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-26/guest-post-how-establishment-will-attempt-bring-down-liberty-movement

mountainaires on July 27, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Maybe Christie should worry about his job in New Jersey before running for president. The only reason why this guy gets any national attention is because Democrats love him. I hope Republicans and conservatives take a look at his record here in NJ before getting behind him. He’s done little other than cut a few deals with the teacher’s union.

JR on July 27, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Christie and Rubio seeing who can out democrat each other. They can both KMA.

they lie on July 27, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Mike OMalley on July 25, 2013 at 11:18 PM

Well put.

unclesmrgol on July 27, 2013 at 11:43 PM

mountainaires on July 27, 2013 at 9:17 AM

Right. Because dropping your shields is the path to victory.

unclesmrgol on July 27, 2013 at 11:44 PM

Real smart. Drive a wedge between conservatives and libertarians so the Republicans never win an election again. That’s some strategy.

dr.foo on July 27, 2013 at 8:34 AM

Why not? That strategy worked so well for Libertarians in 2006 and 2008, why not stay with it? Sure it may have lead to an expansion of the power of the Federal Government like nothing since FDR. It may have lead to deficit spending at rate of 10% or so of GDP (the hated wartime mega-spender George Bush’s rate for fiscal 2001-2008 = 2% of GDP btw); but Libertarians got gay marriage and legalized marijuana and Obamacare to pay for their medical expenses when their lives fall apart after they’ve smoked too much weed. Beside the Catholic Church will be forced to pay for their free birth control. … works for them!

Mike OMalley on July 28, 2013 at 7:33 AM

Mike OMalley on July 25, 2013 at 11:18 PM

Well put.

unclesmrgol on July 27, 2013 at 11:43 PM

Thanks ;-)

Mike OMalley on July 28, 2013 at 7:40 AM

Mike OMalley on July 26, 2013 at 11:42 PM

Mike OMalley on July 27, 2013 at 12:35 AM

It’s the same speech I posted and you have simply removed the nation building elements that you don’t want to acknowledge.

sharrukin on July 27, 2013 at 12:41 AM

… Here is the limitation of the Pres. Bush’s scope of our involvement in Iraq that was dishonored by Paul Bremer, Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq.

The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq’s new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected. (Applause.)

President Discusses the Future of Iraq

To find out how Paul Bremer dishonored the charge placed upon him by Pres. Bush read the book I recommended to you above by Douglas Feith.

Mike OMalley on July 27, 2013 at 12:57 AM

Where did you go Mr. Sharrukin? I gave you the answer you were looking for. It’s over a day and you have not acknowledged I was correct and Ron Paul is wrong.

In February 2003, Pres. Bush had a team of Iraqi exiles ready to go to be installed ASAP as the civilian government of Iraq. There would be no long American occupation of Iraq. Pres. Bush intended that they, these Iraqi exiles, be given the opportunity to build an Iraqi democracy. If they were unable to do so Pres. Bush promised the Iraqi people that they would be governed by no one worse than some one like Chiang Kai-shek or a Prime Minister Lee.

The State Dept. disobeyed Pres. Bush and chose not to implement Pres. Bush’s clear Instructions. Rather than expose and slam the Dept. of State for its unconstitutional malfeasance, Rep. Paul relentlessly demonized Pres. Bush and the Neo-Cons and carried the left-wing’s water on this issue.

Rep. Paul knew or should have known that his criticism of Pres. Bush and the NeoCons was false, just like Rep. Paul knew or should have known that his Congressional newsletter in the 1990s was publishing racist articles in his name.

Now you, Mr. Sharrukin, also know.

Mike OMalley on July 28, 2013 at 8:07 AM

I am with Eric Bolling of Fox News 100%

I am now officially done with Chris Christie!

pilamaye on July 28, 2013 at 9:03 AM

““You can name any one of them that’s engaged in this,” he said. “I want them to come to New Jersey and sit across from the widows and the orphans and have that conversation. …”

Same argument used by the anti-gunners exploiting Sandy Hook, Aurora Theater, etc…

deuce on July 28, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Santorum: ‘People are starting to push back” against Rand Paul
http://www.lisagraas.com/blog/archives/6682

Congressman Steve King called him out, too. It’s not really fair to highlight Christie in your headline. The push back against Rand Paul is the right thing to do. It’s not about Chris Christie. It’s about national security being based on more than the 2nd Amendment.

Rand Paul endorsed Adam Kokesh for Congress. I mean, c’mon.

gocatholic on July 29, 2013 at 12:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3