Well, I don't think the Bush administration was completely truthful with the American public before the Iraq invasion. In regards to WMDs, they were given wrong information by other sources, which doesn't really equate to a lie, but in regards to the way Bush orchestrated the war, it really was unconstitutional in that Congress did not specifically declare war. So on several levels, I think there was some deception involved. The big lie of course is that there is a terrorist threat that must be met with force. This is a lie. There is no terrorist threat if America will close all its military bases, declare neutrality and stop selling weapons to and involving itself in the military affairs of other countries. Bin Laden has stated in 1996 that he believes jihad is necessary because (1) American troops (and mentioned in particular female troops) are on sacred Islamic soil in Saudi Arabia. (2) the sanctions against Iraq after the first Gulf War were hurting the citizens and weakening the country IN PREPARATION FOR ANOTHER INVASION (that’s an interesting prediction). (3) And the support of Israel, who Bin Laden believes is persecuting the Palestinians. For further details on the Middle East situation see my post at:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=88449&messageid=1098035422&lp=1098377146
I think Bush had good intentions for the most part, but as the old saying goes "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." It is wrong to pursue war, it's just that simple. Libertarians should stand against it.
“Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
Hermann Goering, Hitler’s number 2 man, testifying at the Nuremberg trials
As far as the draft, if we’re going to invade Iran or another country, which Bush and some members of his cabinet have stated might be necessary, do you really believe we can do it without instituting a draft? It just doesn’t look possible if you look at the current personnel numbers. I know Bush has said publicly there will be no draft, but if this is the case, then why, buried in the compassionate-sounding 670-page "Leave No Child Behind" law signed by President Bush on January 8, 2002, is Section 9528, which orders high schools to report the names and addresses of their male and female students to the Pentagon?
See www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/index.html
See also:
http://www.chaostan.com/draft-report-preview.html
If there’s not going to be a draft why are they passing laws like this? Looks suspicious if you ask me. I think Badnarik has the right to question this more so than Kerry does, because Kerry will not change U.S. foreign policy and Badnarik will. Kerry will continue with the Imperialistic military policies that will lead to further terrorist attacks against the U.S. that will eventually force a draft. Badnarik will change this. He’s the best hope we’ve got of changing this, so I still wholeheartedly support him.