Bob Barr: He's In It to Lose It
By William R. Hawkins
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/15/2008
Bob Barr, a Georgia Republican congressman from 1995- 2003, formally
announced his campaign for president on the Libertarian Party ticket on
Monday, May 12. It was widely reported that his candidacy will take votes
away from the GOP presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain, similar to the
way
Ralph Nader's campaign will hurt the Democratic nominee. But while Barr
was
a conservative Congressman, he has moved rapidly to the left since
breaking
with the Republican Party two years ago. He has claimed that a McCain
victory would be a "third term" for the Bush administration. On issues of
national security and foreign policy, he now sounds more like Nader or
Barack Obama. Instead of running to the right of McCain, Barr will be
running well to his left - perhaps even further left than the Democratic
nominee. Indeed, one of his best-known competitors for the nomination is
far-leftist Mike Gravel.
At his announcement, Barr claimed he was "in it to win it," echoing
Hillary
Clinton's losing campaign. But his positions indicate, like Gravel, Barr
is
"in it to lose it" when it comes to the War on Terror, or any contest
against America's foreign enemies.
In a video posted on the left-wing Huffington Post the day of his
announcement, Barr says, "Only a fool would signal to whatever our
adversaries are, whoever our adversaries are, exactly how and when we
would
be drawing down our troops. But I do believe that it is extremely
important,
and in the best interests of America's defenses and our security, and our
relationship with our allies, that we do begin immediately setting in
place
a plan to draw down, dramatically decrease the military, the economic and
the political footprint that we maintain in Iraq." Barr's vagueness about
who the enemy is in Iraq, be it al-Qaeda or Iranian-backed militias, makes
it easier for him to ignore the consequences of his proposed withdrawal of
all tools of American influence from the region. Allies and those
considering whether to align with the United States, are not going to be
favorably impressed by a demonstration of American weakness; nor is
crippling political divisions at home a persuasive argument for democracy.
Only five months ago, Barr noted, "Regardless of how one feels about the
war
in Iraq - and I am among those believing the invasion and continued
occupation of this Middle Eastern nation ('nation building,' if you will)
was and remains ill-advised - the performance of our armed forces in Iraq
improved dramatically this past year, especially in the last half of the
year." Barr's advocacy of a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, regardless
of the situation on the ground or the consequences, is the manifestation
of
ideology, not strategic reasoning. Barr exudes Isolationism, a naïve
desire
to retreat into an idyllic world far different than the one that actually
exists. As America learned the hard way during the 1930s, the rest of the
world won't go away.
Barr opposes any military action against Iran, even though he acknowledges
Tehran's quest for nuclear weapons and support for terrorist groups. In a
column last October, he called for "strengthening economic and political
pressure on Iran" without offering any specifics. At the same time, he
argued "What is important, however, should be to quell the simplistic
blustering by the White House and by many presidential candidates designed
to prove each will be tougher on Iran than the others. Also helpful would
be
putting a lid on unnecessary and repetitive insults and threats directed
at
the Ahmadinejad administration." In the months since his column, Iran has
shown that it has no respect for the diplomatic approach of the U.S. and
its
European allies. Not only is the Tehran regime moving ahead with its
nuclear
program, but it has felt secure enough to unleash its Hezbollah proxy army
against the Lebanese government, which is supposedly backed by the same
Western powers.
Dennis/Justin Raimondo has written on AntiWar.com - a site he edits in the
name of isolationism, "Bob Barr's announcement that he is making a run for
the White House on the Libertarian ticket has many advocates of a
non-interventionist foreign policy hopeful, even excited - and I include
myself among them." The United States only flirted with isolationism once
in
its long history of growth to Superpower status, and that was in the 1930s
when the movement helped paralyze opposition to growing global threats
that
finally exploded into World War II. Raimondo, however, is on record
writing, "I believe the wrong side won the war in the Pacific" and
labeling
Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Winston Churchill the real
"fascists"
for opposing Nazi and Communist aggression. If Raimondo is the kind of
person who gets excited at a Barr campaign, McCain has nothing to worry
about.
But Barr is not just opposed to foreign wars. He is opposed to defending
the
United States itself from terrorist attack. He joined with Bruce Fein, a
notorious critic of the Bush administration who has called for the
impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney, to form the "American Freedom
Agenda." The most consistent theme running through left-wing opinion since
September 11, 2001, has been concern for the well-being of the enemy, who
must be protected from American counter measures. The Barr-Fein agenda
thus
calls for extending habeas corpus to alien enemy combatants and amending
the
Espionage Act to permit journalists to reveal classified national security
information without fear of prosecution. Its ten-point agenda would
prohibit:
military commissions, allowing civilian trials for terror-collaborators;
the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by "torture" or coercion
in
any tribunal;
the detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants, although
the law appears to allow this;
the National Security Agency from intercepting phone conversations or
emails, thus crippling Homeland Security measures and surveillance of
terrorists in our midst;
the Executive Branch from invoking the state secrets privilege to anyone
claiming to be a victim of "constitutional violations" perpetrated by
government officers or agents;
the president from detaining terror collaborators abroad, with the
assistance of foreign governments; and
the listing of individuals or organizations with a presence in the United
States as global terrorists or global terrorist organizations based on
secret evidence - that is, lawyers would have to reveal classified
information to those terrorists.
Barr apparently wants God to protect us from terrorism. Barr opposes the
proposal by Sen. Susan Collins, R-ME, and Rep. Jane Harman, D-CA, to
create
a National Commission on the Prevention of Violent Radicalization and
Homegrown Terrorism. "Never content to rely on the Good Lord to deliver us
from those things that might do us harm," he argued, "one Congress after
another - going back at least to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 - has
considered legislation or held hearings to highlight perceived threats and
to then limit individual freedom to battle things that might bump us in
the
night." He dismissed "this century's Red scare - terrorism," although
neither threat was illusory. Simple reliance on the Good Lord did not save
the victims of 9/11, nor did faith alone end the Holocaust or bring down
the
Berlin Wall. If there was divine intervention, it was in providing the
resources and the will to act against the enemies of civilization. God
helps
those who help themselves.
Is this only naivete on Barr's part? In regard to the Collins-Harman bill,
Barr understands that "Any person or organization that might have even
contemplated the use of 'violence' (not itself a defined term in the
legislation) ought to be genuinely frightened of this language. Any
'extremist belief system' (not further defined) that might facilitate
'ideologically based violence' would be a targetable activity for the
commission." Why would anyone not want those contemplating violence to be
afraid, and thus hopefully deterred from spilling blood to advance their
extremist agendas? The answer is found in the Left's mythology of bloody
revolution in the style of Robespierre, Lenin, Mao, or Castro.
Although the Constitution to which he constantly appeals charges the
federal
government with preserving our borders, he has no such interests. He
opposes
the Real ID, which Congress enacted in 2005 to standardize state drivers
licenses and non-driver identification cards to reduce the ability for
illegal aliens, terrorists or other criminals to obtain and use false
documents or establish fictitious identities. As Rep. James Sensenbrenner,
R-WI, said at the time he introduced his Real ID act, "American citizens
have the right to know who is in their country, that people are who they
say
they are, and that the name on a drivers license is the holder's real
name,
not some alias." Mohammed Atta, leader of the 9/11 terrorists, had
obtained
a Florida drivers license, which he used as ID to board the jetliner he
hijacked. This is why the 9/11 Commission recommended increased security
for
state drivers licenses. Licenses that meet the Real ID standard will be
needed for boarding commercial airline flights and for entering federal
buildings and nuclear power plants. But Barr thinks improved licenses will
interfere with "the right to travel free of government constraints," which
"has long been considered a fundamental freedom in America." But such
travel
is a privilege, not a right; and should be denied to criminals.
There is no authentic conservative tradition of turning against one's
country in a time of war. Patriotism and the desire to see one's country
secure, strong and in charge of its own destiny are core conservative
values. Anyone with the shameful inclination to undermine policies that
serve the national interest has to move to the Left to find arguments and
support. This is what Bob Barr has done in his quest for the Libertarian
Party presidential nomination.
--------------------------------------
William R. Hawkins is Senior Fellow for National Security Studies at the
U.S. Business and Industrial Council in Washington, D.C.
|
