Skip to main content

Eric Dondero labels all who oppose Iraqi War as Nazis or Stalinists...

...although he does it on the comments page, rather than have the fortitude to do so in a post:

Actually Stefan, IMHO, being Anti-Iraq War, is not just "extremely Leftwing," but very close to Nazi or Stalinist Authoritarian.

If you oppose the War in Iraq, you are essentially saying "I support Saddam Hussein, and wish he was still President of Iraq."

Recall Hussein was a Hitler worshipper, even knelt down 4 times a day in his Uncle's hut, to a large portrait of the Nazi leader, with candles around him.

So, being Anti-War in Iraq, is not so much "extremist," more Hitler-like.


I mention this because Eric likes to drop by here and call people names when they don't agree with him, like when he's running outrageous, manufactured stories about WMDs found in Iraq (the Tuwaitha yellowcake that Dubya himself handed back to the Iraqi security forces as no threat [we'd known about it since 1991]), support for the racist Sonny Landham as the Libertarian Senatorial candidate in Kentucky, or his whining proclamation that November 4, 2008, was The Day American Died.

Eric Dondero's America is populated not by citizens with different points of view, but with real Americans under constant siege by internal Stalinists, Nazis, punks, and whiners. The democratic process, to Eric, is only valid when it returns the result that he prefers. Every time it doesn't, that's prima facie evidence that evil people are about to take over.

I will, with pride, wear Eric's insult that I am a Nazi for opposing an interventionist foreign policy.

If he thought I was doing something right, I'd be worried.

Comments

Eric Dondero said…
Yup, that about sums it up.

I'd add on caveat though. There are a tiny handful of libertarians who oppose the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for purely fiscal reasons. They are concerned about the rise of Islamo-Fascism, but truly honestly believe the financial costs of full-blown War are just too great to the American taxpayers.

These folks deserve my respect, and I do not put them in the same Fascist-loving category of Anti-War Libertarians who are pacifist or non-interventionist on all matters.

Didn't occur to me to make this a front page article, but since you mentioned it, maybe I'll elaborate and turn it into one for the future.
Eric Dondero said…
Well then Newton, you ought to be worried, cause IMHO you are doing at least one thing right.

I can't figure out why, you truly have me puzzled here, but there's a side of you that's open to Libertarians running for office as Republicans, or as dual-party candidates.

The Rhode Island Libertarian Party does this too. Maybe it's a tiny State deal?

But on this one item, I heartily applaud you and the Delaware Libertarian Party.

I only wish more State Libertarian Parties would follow your example.
Ahh, damn. Now I'm worried.
Anonymous said…
To his credit, Mr. Dondero is gainfully empoyed; at least, he was when I met him.

To their entire lack of credit he is gainfully employed at least part of the time by the Libertarian National Committee...

I am entirely in favor of the thought of Republicans running from Libertarians, for example, fleeing to North Korea to escape Libertarian war crimes prosecutors.
Brian Miller said…
I wouldn't take Mr. Dondero Rittberg too seriously. He's not even taken seriously by the pro-war "Libertarians." That's pretty far out! ;)
Anonymous said…
Saddam Hussein is dead. I think it very possible that as a dead man he would be a better ruler for Iraq than what they have now.

News flash: Saddam Hussein is still dead. He's been dead for two years.

The Iraq war can not be justified by removing Saddam Hussein from power. He is not in power. He's dead.

This just in, Saddam Hussein, still dead after all these years.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...