Antiwar.com Blog

Billmon rips the curtain back
on American Legion partisan hypocrisy.

Report By Lawrence Samuels

For months, antiwar Libertarian Party leaders in California have attempted to get LP County organizations to pass peace resolutions. Many LP members were upset that the Libertarian Party had put the Iraq War on the backburner. They wanted the LP to become more active in opposing the war.

As more LP county organizations started to pass the Samuels and Hacker antiwar resolutions, (over 14 currently) a new group was formed — the LPC Peace Caucus. Their first major mission was to get the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of California to endorse an antiwar resolution at their Aug. 20 meeting in Los Angeles.

Immediately, the Aug. 20 LPC meeting turned into a battlefield. There was an attempt to stop any anti-war resolution by Parliamentary procedures. It was argued that resolutions could only be presented at the annual LPC state conventions. Since the LPC had issued recent resolutions on other subjects, the LPC chair, Aaron Starr, reluctantly ruled to allow a vote.

Several antiwar resolutions were presented and defeated; the main one – the Samuels resolution failed by one vote (8 needed). One thinly veiled pro-war resolution was submitted by Dan Wiener, but received only a few votes. The resolutions appeared dead at this point and the committee continued with other business. However, with 5 minutes remaining in the session, Paul Ireland brought up the Hacker resolution which had been overlooked. A motion was made by Mark Selzer to suspend the rules to consider the new peace resolution. This time, the resolution passed – 8-4-2 (8 yes, 4 abstained and 2 against).

The vote: For: Lawrence Samuels, Mark Selzer, Ted Brown, Bruce Dovner, Allen Hacker, Paul Ireland, Rick Nichol and Richard Newell. Against: Dan Wiener and Bruce Cohen. Abstained: Aaron Starr, Willard Michlin, M. Carling, Kevin Takenaga, and Mark Johnson.

A Resolution

Affirming the National Libertarian Party Principles and Platform Concerning Foreign Intervention and the Invasion of Iraq

Whereas, the National Libertarian Party Platform’s Preamble states in part, “As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others”;

Whereas, the National Libertarian Party Platform’s Statement of Principles states in part, “…we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others….”;

Whereas, the National Libertarian Party Platform at Part IV.D.2. (Foreign Affairs / International Relations / Foreign Intervention), states in part, “The United States should not inject itself into the internal matters of other nations, unless they have declared war upon or attacked the United States, or the U.S. is already in a constitutionally declared war with them,” and, “End the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid, guarantees, and diplomatic meddling”;

Whereas the admittedly (by the President and Vice-president) pre-emptive (“before the fact”) invasion of the sovereign nation of Iraq by the United States was accomplished in blatant disregard for American constitutional requirements and international law under treaties to which the United States is a signatory, and upon an apparently false basis of manipulated information and manufactured allegations;

Whereas the continuing military occupation of Iraq is precipitating a deplorable loss of civilian and American lives, is exacerbating American deficit spending, and appears to be aggravating the terrorist threat worldwide;

Now, therefore,

Be it Resolved, that the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee hereby affirms the National Libertarian Party’s Preamble, Statement of Principles and Platform, in particular for this case those portions cited herein; and

Be it Further Resolved, that the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee finds, upon no tangible proof having been shown of Iraqi participation in the World Trade Center, etc. (9/11) attack, that the invasion of Iraq appears unwarranted; and

Be it Further Resolved, that the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee finds that the continuing occupation of Iraq is inimical to the interests of the citizens of the United States as well as to the interests of the citizens of Iraq; and

Be it Further Resolved, that the United States government’s declared purpose of “bringing democracy to Iraq” is an offensive imposition of the values of some of our citizens over a foreign sovereign people; and

Be it Further Resolved, that the Libertarian Party of California Executive Committee formally petitions that the National Libertarian Party remain constant and adamant in demanding that the United States government cease and desist in the most safely expedient manner possible from all foreign economic and military interventions, Iraq in particular, and correct its international policies so that it may at last begin to facilitate world peace through the naturally benevolent function of the Free Market.

This could be big trouble: Rival Shiites clash

Chris Albritton in Iraq has more:

BAGHDAD — Earlier this evening, Najaf police units, led by a Badr Organization commander, descended on Moqtada’s office in Najaf, located on the main street approaching the Imam Ali Shrine. In the clash, Moqtada’s office, only four meters from the shrine, was burned to the ground, according to Abu Hazzim, who worked in the Najaf office and fled for his life to Sadr City. He says 23 people have been killed, most of them Moqtada’s supporters. Iraqi Army and police have been involved in the fighting. Many of the police and army units in the south are packed by Badr militiamen with more loyalty to the party than to the state. As I write, clashes continue.

Moqtada has put out an alert for the jaysh al-Mahdi militia to be on high alert in Sadr City, Najaf, Nasriyah, Amarah and Basra. In Sadr City and Basra, jaysh al-Mahdi members have asked to occupy/attack SCIRI and Badr offices, but so far they’ve been kept in check by Moqtada and Fatah al-Sheikh, one of Moqtada’s supporters in parliament.

Or at least he was. Earlier this evening, Moqtada gave the Jaafari government an hour to explain, pull back or apologize for these attacks. He also called on his supporters in parliament, Fatah and others from the NICE list, to resign because “Moqtada now considers the government illegal,” according to Abu Hazzim. Fatah has told me he has resigned. A press conference is imminent.

Scott Galindez at truthout announces, “Cindy is scheduled to arrive at Waco Airport at 4:30 pm today.”

Perhaps referencing the right-wing, pro-war smear campaign which has lately been sending Cindy emails which say " Go Home and Take Care of Your Kids", Cindy writes:

This isn’t about politics. It’s about what is good for America and what’s best for our security and how far this president has taken us away from both.

I’m coming back to Crawford because — now and forever — this is my duty for my son, for my other children, for other parents, and for my country.

The Blog | Michael O’Hanlon: Oil, Sunnis, and the Iraqi Constitution | The Huffington Post

Although what the draft text says, exactly, is somewhat unclear, I have big concerns about one reported issue in Iraq’s constitution — how oil revenue is to be distributed.

Oil accounts for 98% of Iraq’s export earnings. When foreign aid starts to dry up in a few years, it will be Iraq’s only real source of hard currency.

According to press reports about the draft, and somewhat ambiguous language in the draft constitution itself, the Kurds and Shia have agreed that revenue from existing oil wells is to be shared nationally, but earnings from new wells will accrue to whichever regional government develops the well in question.

This is a big problem. For one thing, it invites gamesmanship. An old well can be modernized and redefined as new. Even if the Kurds and Shia are fair-minded about it, someday all wells in Iraq will be "new" relative to a 2005 starting point. At that time, what will be the economic basis of the Iraqi state? Even more to the point, what will be the economic basis of any Sunni Arab rump state?

I was wondering about this issue yesterday as I cruised the internets looking for the warblogger spin on the Iraqi draft constitution.  Instaglenn was puffing this post on normblog which quotes an email from Brendan O’Leary (listed here as "constitutional advisor to the Kurdistan Government, presently in Iraq") mostly concentrating on how the Kurds fared in the draft.  However, O’Leary includes this bit:

Kurdistan has achieved its ‘red lines’ in the negotiations. The KRG [Kurdistan Regional Government] retains its full domestic legal autonomy; the legal competences of the federal government are narrowly circumscribed, and less than those in the Transitional Administrative Law; and in a clash between regional and federal law in an arena of regional competence, regional law is supreme. The Peshmerga will be the internal security/regional guard of Kurdistan; and the KRG will be able to block the deployment of the Iraqi army within Kurdistan. Natural resources that are currently exploited are a joint competence with joint revenues; unexploited/new natural resources belong to the regions. Art. 58 of the TAL (reversing Saddam’s ‘Arabization’) will be implemented, and there will be a referendum on Kirkuk and the disputed territories by 2007. The future constitutional amendment process requires the consent of the Kurdistan National Assembly if a change affects its powers.

Considering the well-known fact that the majority of Sunni Arabs live in a relatively resourceless area, as well as the known degraded state of both the Rumaylah and Kirkuk oilfields, coupled with the expectation that vast, unexplored fields ( According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Iraq contains 115 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, the third largest in the world (behind Saudi Arabia and Canada), concentrated overwhelmingly (65 percent or more) in southern Iraq. Estimates of Iraq’s oil reserves and resources vary widely, however, given that only about 10 percent of the country has been explored.) are the real future of Iraq’s oil wealth, it seems clear that the Sunnis have been dealt out of all but a pittance of the anticipated billions to be realized from Iraqi oil.

As O’Hanlon says, “Realizing how badly their interests are being protected, Sunni Arabs — already the core of the insurgency — will likely step up their resistance. At a minimum they will probably “veto” the constitution in the October referendum.

Iraq’s international friends need to pressure the Kurds and Shia to change this provision, or to clarify that new wells will be treated the same as the old ones.”

Other than this question, the spin from the warbloggers seems to be focused on keeping their anti-Muslim, Holy War allies from freaking out over the Iranian nature of the role of Islam inserted into the draft. The AP helpfully mistranslated the clause upon which all their democratic hopes hang, substituting “No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam” for the more ominous, but accurate translation ” No law may be legislated that contravenes the essential verities of Islamic law.” As Juan Cole points out: “The TAL and earlier drafts said that law may not contravene the verities of Islam. By specifying ISLAMIC LAW– ahkam al-Islam– this text enshrines the shariah or Islamic canon law quite explicitly in the constitution and would allow religious jurists to question secular legislation.” Look for even more warblogger heads to explode when they finally notice this.

Here’s one secular Shiite Iraqi woman’s take on the new constitution: "This is the future of the new Iraqi government – it will be in the hands of the clerics," said Dr. Raja Kuzai, a secular Shiite member of the Assembly. "I wanted Iraqi women to be free, to be able to talk freely and to able to move around."

"I am not going to stay here," said Dr. Kuzai, an obstetrician and women’s leader who met President Bush in the White House in November 2003.

Billmon has more here and here.

“… when even Fox News was piling on President Bush’s counselor, Dan Bartlett.” More from the Washington Post:

E.D. Hill, one of the “Fox & Friends” morning show anchors, said she thought the Iraq war “was a justified one” but now worries “that there’s not a plan to actually win that ground war.”

“Well, E.D., I can assure you that’s not the case,” Bartlett assured her. Allowing that it’s been a “bumpy process” with “difficult days,” he asserted: “We have the right strategy to prevail.”

Hill was not reassured by this assurance. “I guess I’m not convinced,” she replied.

If Fox News falls, who will Bush have left?