In response to this article about a CNN interview of former Vice President Dick Cheney, Libertarian Party Political Director Carla Howell asserted on Press TV that, as a prime instigator of the 2002 U.S. invasion of Iraq based on false claims of “weapons of mass destruction,” Cheney’s opinion on today’s violence in Iraq is invalid.
“How could someone with such power and access to inside information be so wrong? Is it possible that it was not merely a mistake but an excuse to invade Iraq? If so, he should be treated as a war criminal, not a foreign policy pundit,” she said on July 16. “At a minimum, he was grossly unqualified to be Vice President of the United States…”
(The Press TV commentary posted with her audio statement omits the conditional aspect of her assertion that Cheney was a war criminal. The audio file itself posted to their website was not functional as of July 17.)
Below is the full transcript of Carla Howell’s July 17, 2014 statement to Press TV:
“The real question is: Why does CNN, and the US media, continue to give any significance to what former VP Dick Cheney has to say?
“Cheney was a primary instigator of the destabilizing and destructive war in Iraq.
“Cheney was the man who insisted there were Weapons of Mass Destruction (“WMDs”) that he claimed presented a threat to the United States – which his administration had to sheepishly recant within a few years after thorough investigation showed that no such threat existed.
“How could someone with such power and access to inside information be so wrong? Is it possible that it was not merely a mistake but an excuse to invade Iraq? If so, he should be treated as a war criminal, not a foreign policy pundit.
“At a minimum, he was grossly unqualified to be Vice President of the United States and has no legs to stand on to judge Presidents Carter or Obama.
“It should be noted, however, that Obama is equally guilty for staying in Iraq, for surging in Afghanistan, and for intervening and flirting with even larger interventions in Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Gaza. He should know better.
“The Libertarian Party calls for a non-interventionist foreign policy of peace, open borders, and free trade. If any of our last dozen presidents had abided by such a policy, there would likely be far less conflict in the Middle East; far fewer, if any, threats of terrorism instigated by foreigners; and many lives would have been saved – both of American service men and women and war victims around the world.
“Over twenty Libertarian candidates running for federal office this year have called for downsizing the U.S. military by at least 60%, closing all foreign military bases, withdrawing completely from the Middle East, and bringing our troops home. This is the way we’ll achieve peace on earth.”
Nope. Please pay attention. I disgree with virtually everyone in some way. I know from experience some people are more reachable for less effort/cost than others.
I disagree that the criminal case is weak. I disagree that everyone who agrees with me is a leftist or anarchist. I know for a fact that none of that is the case. There are a ton more people who are already libertarian and want to see the LP stand up on issues like this, or easily persuadable to libertarian, than have ever even thought about being in the LP up til now.
I think my prior comment explained things just fine. You don’t have to agree with me; that is OK.
pf: The milquetoast audience that may be perturbed at this truthful suggestion is comprised of individuals who are far more likely to be OK with the statist quo and proportionately far less likely to take a radical step such as supporting an alternative political party, much less one that stands for anything.
me: See, this may be closer to the nub of things. You brand others as “milquetoast” apparently because they don’t see things as you do. Consider, though, that Compound W did get a certain amount of support from the UN for taking out SH, IIRC. The international legal case was weakened by that fact.
Those who were paying attention recall that. What might have seemed a semi-plausible international law case got way more complicated and weak by that fact alone. And, yet, you label this more 360 viewpoint “milquetoast.”
Add to that the many other extreme positions the LP takes on a number of fronts. Those who buy into your and CH’s (somewhat hedged) view seem to forget that EVEN IF you attract those sympathetic to your (weak) case for “war criminal” are generally either anarchists or hard leftists. The latter seem non-predisposed to the LP’s extreme free market stances. The former — who may well know about Canadian rule-less traffic-law experiments — may find the LP to be “milquetoast.” But I do agree that these few thousand may feel more at home with the LP if it uses incendiary rhetoric more frequently.
JP, I agree with the sentiment, thanks! Mostly, I don’t “argue,” I ask questions.
It seems the kindest thing to do. Rather than assert that the person out on a ledge 20 stories up is “wrong,” I prefer to question him or her. What do you hope to accomplish being out there? Have you considered your alternatives? etc. Far be it for me to say that ledge walking is wrong for that person. Like branding unindicted high-level government officials as “war criminals,” it may well be indicated to walk the ledge. I’m just not seeing the case.
I haven’t seen a lot of justification for the accusation as a political tactic, though. I just hear you, PF, and Andy asserting it is incontrovertibly true and that such pronouncements are imperative. Candidly, that stand has a dogmatic feel to it.
RC said: “Not caring what one is communicating and to whom one is communicating is widely considered poor communications”
It’s that pick-your-battles thing. It’s clear that your main activism is arguing, Robert. I rarely bother discussing things with you, and this is an example why.
I can’t tell you how many people I’ve been able to enlighen on a variety of topics. Others, not
so much. I’m often told, however, that what I do IS making a difference. So, I’ll continue doing what I’m doing, and you continue what you’re doing, Robert. That’s the Libertarian thing: to each, his (or her) own.
I care about what I am communicating and to whom, and I want to communicate that the LP knows and understands that Cheney and his gang are war criminals to the millions of Americans and billions around the world who already know this and are crying out for justice.
The milquetoast audience that may be perturbed at this truthful suggestion is comprised of individuals who are far more likely to be OK with the statist quo and proportionately far less likely to take a radical step such as supporting an alternative political party, much less one that stands for anything.
Given that it would take far more resources than we have to communicate with any significant portion of this larger audience, our task in the short to semi-long term at a minimum is to reach the folks with fire in their belly who will actually do more than casually wipe themselves if we do manage to penetrate their consciousness.
JP, you are “most likely” incorrect. 😉 In fact, you are in this case certainly incorrect, since I am simply responding and reflecting on what you said previously.
Not caring what one is communicating and to whom one is communicating is widely considered poor communications.
Robert-I give up with talking to you about this. I realize you most likely are doing it just to keep conversation going, but I’ve got other things to do today, such as trying to teach others about Liberty.
Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
JP: Since when do Libertarians or other activists care about this??:
me: Good point. Have you considered the possibility that that’s part of the problem? By way of analogy, have you ever been to a party where someone was droning on and on about some obscure, irrelevant subject? Many/most tend to drift away, avoiding the bore.
Why bother being irrelevant? What purpose does it serve? More importantly, what might happen if people are approached with relevant, non-wacko ideas? Maybe they’d be more inclined to listen further, to think more deeply on a political approach.
RC said: “labeling sitting and previous administrations with hyperbolic, incendiary labels probably doesn’t go over so well with the conflicted American psyche.”
Since when do Libertarians or other activists care about this??:
Robert Capozzi said: “Whether this “war criminals” line — which looks largely to be the work of mostly the hard-ish left community — will work is highly doubtful, though. The left talking to the left, with an element of the tiny LM echoing that analysis, probably doesn’t get Cheney behind bars.
Anyone care to wager?”
Lots of people agree that Dick Cheney is a war criminal. Maybe not enough to put him behind bars (yet), but still, a lot of people.
I feel like Charleton Heston at the end of the Planet of the Apes! 🙁
Perhaps more the The Omega Man.
pf, sure, there’s Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and his stunt of a war crimes commission. There’s nothing wrong with stunts, per se, but I’d think that for Cheney to be prosecuted, I’d think it’d have to be done in person on US soil.
My sense is that Americans are generally QUITE nationalistic. Very large numbers are quite skeptical of the government and politicians, but OTOH labeling sitting and previous administrations with hyperbolic, incendiary labels probably doesn’t go over so well with the conflicted American psyche.
The exception that I can think of was Nixon. He was successfully shamed out of office with a steady drumbeat of (largely accurate) demonization tactics. It didn’t work with Reagan, Clinton, W, or Obama.
I wouldn’t bet either way. And there are all sorts of people around the world calling Cheney and friends war criminals, not only leftists or libertarians.
JP: Looking at those pictures give me a little hope that their horrible deeds will be remembered as they actually happened. I’d hate to have future generations think they were good guys.
me: Yes, it would be interesting to see how the history books are written for this period. I suspect that the story isn’t over yet, that there are many more shoes to drop in the Near East. I’d HOPE that the we would learn our lesson and tactfully extricate US troops from around the globe, but, if anything, the interventionist impulse seems to have only abated a bit in the last 2-3 years. Now this year, my sense is the pols and MIC want what’s feeling like WWIII.
I feel like Charleton Heston at the end of the Planet of the Apes! 🙁
Whether this “war criminals” line — which looks largely to be the work of mostly the hard-ish left community — will work is highly doubtful, though. The left talking to the left, with an element of the tiny LM echoing that analysis, probably doesn’t get Cheney behind bars.
Anyone care to wager?
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/6/2/ex_counterterrorism_czar_richard_clarke_bush
http://www.cheneywatch.org/
http://www.prosecutegeorgebush.com/
http://www.prosecutegeorgebush.com/the-book.php
http://www.warcrimestimes.org/
http://tortureaccountability.org/
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/05/12/bush-convicted-of-war-crimes-in-absentia/
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44337958/ns/us_news-security/t/ex-powell-aide-dick-cheney-fears-prosecution-war-crimes/
Thanks for the memes and articles about our national war criminals, Paulie. Looking at those pictures give me a little hope that their horrible deeds will be remembered as they actually happened. I’d hate to have future generations think they were good guys.
Visualize US war criminals in prison
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/20/michael-moore-why-arent-bush-cheney-rumsfeld-jail/
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/dick-cheney-should-be-rotting-prison-cell-not-opining-about-iraq
http://www.thenation.com/blog/156800/dick-cheneys-250-million-get-out-jail-free-card
http://www.alternet.org/story/141371/could_dick_cheney_go_to_prison
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/cheney-war-crimes/
“paulie Post authorJuly 19, 2014 at 8:28 pm
There’s a difference, but it’s irrelevant in this case.”
Exactly.
There’s a difference, but it’s irrelevant in this case. Obama and Cheney are war criminals who should be be charged with and convicted of war crimes.
andy: Both statements are true.
me: OK, but again you do what you do best: evade. I asked do you see a difference? You didn’t answer.
JP: If we wait until someone in the government takes action, we’ll never see anyone being reminded of the terrible deeds they’ve done.
me: Seems to me that any “action” that might be happening is mostly undetected hot air. This is a quixotic cause.
JP: I’m used to being in the upper 5 % or so.
me: Good for you. How’s that working out for you?
JP: BTW, calling my views “fringey” or “kooky” doesn’t bother me at all. It does, however, give me a clue of who you’re getting your talking points from.
me: I am all ears. Who’s giving me my talking points? The Illuminati? The Grays? 😉
“Robert Capozzi
July 19, 2014 at 5:57 am
OK, Class, does anyone see the difference between Obama IS a war criminal OR Obama SHOULD BE CHARGED with war crimes?”
Both statements are true.
RC said: ” There are LOTS of kooky ideas that have 1.5MM adherents.”
I responded to a similar comment earlier in the thread. The quantity of people who share my enlightenment means nothing to me. I’m used to being in the upper 5 % or so.
BTW, calling my views “fringey” or “kooky” doesn’t bother me at all. It does, however, give me a clue of who you’re getting your talking points from.
“Has a US politician ever been charged with war crimes, I wonder” I don’t know about the vast history of this country, but I don’t believe anyone has been charged with war crimes in the past few administrations.. That’s actually my point. If we wait until someone in the government takes action, we’ll never see anyone being reminded of the terrible deeds they’ve done.
MHW, OK. Have I defended Cheney in any way in your mind, btw?
Has a US politician ever been charged with war crimes, I wonder?
RC Cheney needs to be arrested. No if, ands, or buts about it.
mc: I’d be willing to bet that there are at least 100 times as many people that believe Cheney is a war criminal as there are current LP members. So, I say go for it.
me: Hmm if the bar is 100x current LP membership, then we’re talkin’ 1.5MM or so. There are LOTS of kooky ideas that have 1.5MM adherents.
OK, Class, does anyone see the difference between Obama IS a war criminal OR Obama SHOULD BE CHARGED with war crimes?
CH has a bit of cover, as she started her sentence “If so….” It’s still macho flash, but at least it’s accurate.
Some of us call things as they really are. Cheney is a war criminal along with Dubya, Condileeza Rice, Rumsfeld, and not to be forgotten, Obama and his good friend Hillary Clinton. We’re never going to get out of this war state in this country until people call things as they are. The people killed in war are MURDERED–not the “collateral damage” crap some people call it.
Well said, Jill, especially the part about the “collateral damage” rhetoric. It never ceases to amaze me that so many people are actually willing to accept such disingenuous euphemisms.
I also have taken care here not to opine as to whether this is a good or bad thing. Its probably both, or neither, depending on who is reading and/or the subject being discussed.
If you’re referring to Capozzi’s penchant for trying to poke holes in virtually every genuinely libertarian position he encounters, I think it’s probably a good thing, given the quality of his arguments. Regardless of his intentions, he usually ends up serving basically the same function as the Washington Generals did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Generals
I’m kind of with you, Matt. I doubt that he really believes a lot of what he says. At least, I hope that’s the case.
Matt Matt Cholko said: “I also have taken care here not to opine as to whether this is a good or bad thing. Its probably both, or neither, depending on who is reading and/or the subject being discussed.”
Pointing out the truth is always a good thing for Libertarians to do. Dick Cheney is a war criminal. Anyone who has a problem with that statement is not a good prospect for libertarianism anyway.
Funny how Robert Capozzi claims to be a Libertarian, yet he spends most of his time on internet forums arguing against liberty with fellow Libertarians.
In defense of Mr. Capozzi, it is clear that he likes playing devil’s advocate, so things he says here may or may not be his actual beliefs. Otherwise, how could he ALWAYS come down on the less popular (on IPR) side of the discussion?
Not trying to infer anything about this, or any other, specific thread. In general though, it is a very clear pattern.
I also have taken care here not to opine as to whether this is a good or bad thing. Its probably both, or neither, depending on who is reading and/or the subject being discussed.
Really, Mr. Capozzi, you might want to expand your horizons a bit. You seem to be missing a lot of what is going on in our party, and actually, a lot of what’s going on in the world..
I’d be willing to bet that there are at least 100 times as many people that believe Cheney is a war criminal as there are current LP members. So, I say go for it.
Congratulations to Carla for saying what I’m willing to bet most Libertarians believe.
I can’t imagine what Robert thinks we’ll accomplish to continue to sit politely by and wait for those who are complicit in war crimes to charge Cheney with war crimes…or not. My life isn’t long enough for that.
That was…
And
Long overdue
Yes, I respect that you do, PF. I recall that in Portland 06, someone proposed an incendiary resolution that, in effect, iirc, fingered Cheney as a war criminal, or somesuch. I rose to suggest defeating this resolution, and was successful.
Now, the political director 8 years later has adopted this incendiary line of reasoning.
Most unfortunate, from my perspective.
You shout Hosannas, apparently.
Rhetorical excess? Hysterically overstated?
I strongly disagree.
Nice? I see, so any description short of the hysterically overstated “war criminal” description is (somehow) “nice” in your book? Hmm. Guess I have to do some navel gazing on that one! 😉
“I just hang out with smart and informed people who are tired of making nice comments about murderous monsters like Dick Cheney”.
Fixed!.
I just hang out with smart and informed people who enjoy engaging in rhetorical excess.
Fixed!
“JP, well, you must go to a VERY select Carl’s Jr. and In-N-Out, then!”
I actually rarely go to either one. I just hang out with smart and informed people. The Liberty Community in Los Angeles is a bright spot in an otherwise troubled state.
PF, nope. I am almost completely fearless! You’re coming at this the wrong way. The question is what ATTRACTS people? Radical chic poseurs only attract a tiny sliver of the population.
Mislabeling people “war criminals” doesn’t galvanize me, and I’m not seeing pitchfork brigades storming Jackson, WY hunting the “criminal” down.
JP, well, you must go to a VERY select Carl’s Jr. and In-N-Out, then! 😉
Robert is afraid of offending the wrong people. I want to galvanize the people we should be galvanizing. We are irrelevant until we do, and our inoffensiveness does not make us any less so.
Robert, again I suggest you get out more. The war criminality of Cheney is accepted by most people I know, and, considering how corrupt the govrenment is, the fact that he hasn’t been indicted should not change the facts. And as far as appearing fringey, when has that ever been important to Libertarians? It certainly doesn’t matter to me.
Where are the indictments?
Great question. They are long overdue. Maybe we just need more people and parties demanding it.
Hopefully there will be indictments, as there most certainly should be.
I don’t regard the failure of a complicit system to prosecute government criminals as absolvement for the crimes.
Incidentally, I did do a Bush impeachment petition talking to the general public (for a town council to issue a resolution) and many people volunteered without being asked that Duhbya is a war criminal. Granted, this was in a very liberal town.
I’ve had a number of people volunteer that while working on unrelated issues.
I could really go for a Burger from In-N-Out right now…..
more…
JP, yep, big fan of calling things are they are.
Where are the indictments?
JP, both.
You could test it out yourself. Go out to your closest Carl’s Jr. and ask the patrons whether Cheney and Obama are “war criminals.” Maybe have a friend bring a video camera to capture the reaction shots. A few may agree. Some may laughingly agree. Most will steer away from you, perhaps exiting for the nearest In-N-Out.
The term war “criminal” is generally reserved for indicted despots and their top functionaries, Nuremberg defendants and Milosevic. I get that you think Cheney and Obama are despots, and I’m sympathetic (though I think that’s a bit over the top). But they aren’t indicted. So the term is not only inaccurate, but it sounds shrill and fringy.
Wasn’t CH’s ex the popularizer of the term “macho flash,” and why it’s poor rhetoric? Perhaps he couldn’t convince her over waffles? 😉
Jill:
Joshua:
Agreed and agreed!
Robert, seriously, I often can’t tell if you really believe the things that you write, or are just trying to facilitate conversation. I really hope it’s the latter.
No “may” about it, he absolute has and continues to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saleh_v._Bush
And they would probably be right.
Perhaps not.
Consider yourself so colored. My opinion hasn’t changed, though.
Maybe calling police theft theft is also shrill:
But, it happens to be true.
And so is calling Cheney and Obama war criminals.
Not everyone will be persuaded, but the number of people who will appreciate that we have the guts to say it will be far larger than the number of current LP activists or even those who have ever voted for us.
Some of us call things as they really are. Cheney is a war criminal along with Dubya, Condileeza Rice, Rumsfeld, and not to be forgotten, Obama and his good friend Hillary Clinton. We’re never going to get out of this war state in this country until people call things as they are. The people killed in war are MURDERED–not the “collateral damage” crap some people call it.
>Whenever I hear Cheney, I generally discount his opinions, and I also don’t find him credible. >Still, I do recognize that he has a lot of knowledge about foreign affairs. I just find his judgment >and his pronouncements to be extremely poor.
Seems to me this is entirely in agreement with Carla’s comments. He lacks not knowledge, but morality. Honestly, I’m less concerned with popularity than with doing what is right. The man belongs in a cell, and of all of Obama’s failures, the failure to prosecute is among the largest.
PF, hmm, I’d not thought about how many believe this explicitly. Now you’ve given me an opportunity to SWAG it…it might be in the 10-15% or so of the pop. Were it higher, there’d probably be some sort of credible legal action pending.
Personally, I think Cheney’s one confused citizen. My guess is he at least put his finger on the scale. He may well have outright lied to the citizenry. But the charge of “criminal” requires a credible legal case to be brought against him. And Obama, for that matter.
Had Cheney lost in 2000, some would probably be saying that Lieberman is a “war criminal,” too. Perhaps fewer, though, maybe 5-10%. Whether such shrill soap-boxery is the path to the L Promised Land, color me skeptical!
Those of us who believe this is true, especially of Cheney, may be more numerous than you realize. I’ll grant that many of them have failed to extend their logic to president Obama.
ch: Is it possible that it was not merely a mistake but an excuse to invade Iraq? If so, he should be treated as a war criminal, not a foreign policy pundit.
me: Yes, and if Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington on purpose rather than by accident, he should be charged with assault with a deadly weapon. 😉
I am CERTAINLY no fan of Cheney’s. But such loose talk diminishes Howell, I suspect, in most people’s eyes, except those who share her apparent opinion that the former VP — and apparently Obama — should be considered “war criminals.”
Whenever I hear Cheney, I generally discount his opinions, and I also don’t find him credible. Still, I do recognize that he has a lot of knowledge about foreign affairs. I just find his judgment and his pronouncements to be extremely poor.
Loose talk about war criminals might feel good to the accuser and his/her comrades, but it is fringe talk.
Agreed!
This is excellent! We need more press releases like this. Hearing Carla call Cheney out for being the war criminal that he is is absolutely wonderful. It’s encouraging that some people in the party really do know what’s going on.