"What we hoped to see with the incoming Obama administration were plans for a total withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq," says William Redpath, national chairman of the Libertarian Party. "Instead, we're seeing the same missteps of the Bush administration that have kept our troops in the Middle East since 2001." ...
"Shifting troops from one front to another is not 'bringing them home,' as Democrats promised to do in 2006," says Redpath. "Obama is pursuing a hawkish foreign policy that should worry any advocates of non-intervention. He'll keep us in that region for his entire presidency."
The problem here is not that Redpath is wrong about Obama's foreign policy aims--he isn't. Along with dozens of other bloggers around the country, I've been telling people this ... for months.
The problem is that there was never, despite Redpath's naive protestation to the contrary, any indication that Barack Obama was going to withdraw from Afghanistan. He made it a centerpiece of his foreign policy statements throughout the campaign that he intended to reinforce Afghanistan and stay as long as he thought necessary. He also made it perfectly clear that he never intended a complete withdrawal from Iraq [changed thanks to Paulie's sharp eye; it originally said "Afghanistan" again].
You can accuse Barack Obama of continuing the long-running legacy of American interventionist imperialism all you want, but you have absolutely no grounds to suggest he ever misled anybody about his intentions.
Here's once again the problem with the current leadership of the Libertarian Party: a campaign late and millions of dollars short.
Hell, even Bob Barr got it long before the LNC.