If you haven’t yet visited the Libertarian website Antiwar.com, then you need to today. Antiwar.com is a website offering breaking news and informed opinion on today’s global conflicts from a staunchly Libertarian and anti-interventionist standpoint (a position shared by Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul). Justin Raimondo and Eric Garris launched the site in 1995 in response to the U.S. involvement in the Bosnian War and never looked back. Although it is fiercely paleolibertarian, Antiwar.com features contributions from figures across the political spectrum, including Paul Craig Roberts (assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration), Pat Buchanan and Ray McGovern.

Liberty Watch had an opportunity to chat with Raimondo, who serves as Antiwar.com’s editorial director, about the burning issues of the late summer of 2007. As always, Raimondo is refreshingly direct, refusing to cut neoconservatives (i.e., big-government conservatives) any slack in their thinly veiled desire for infinite war and an ever-expanding military socialism.

War with Iran seems imminent. In a recent column, you state that public outrage might manifest itself in a “return of the kind of domestic unrest that roiled the 1960s and almost tore this nation apart.” Do you really believe this is likely without a draft?
To begin with, you don’t need a draft, just a sufficiently outraged population. I think the existing opposition to Bush’s warlike foreign policy would become much more intense than it is right now, and we would see a proliferation of “incidents” — which, in themselves, would lead to bigger incidents. Secondly, don’t assume there isn’t going to be a draft. The “surge” in Iraq will have to be maintained somehow, and an outright invasion of Iran would require many more troops than we have on the ground in Mesopotamia right now. A Gulf of Tonkin-style incident, involving Iran and the U.S., as predicted by Ron Paul, would spark a call for conscription, and there would be a surprising amount of political support for it, including from the Democratic Party. 

Gen. Petraeus’ report is out. Nothing in it surprised anyone, really. Yet both Democrats and Republicans had told us that he is a man of principle.
Who told you that Gen. Petraeus is a “man of principle”? And what principle are we talking about here. No, look: Petraeus is the President’s man, the counterpoint to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who opposes the “surge” (and is, not surprisingly, slated for retirement). Petraeus is saying that we need to “surge” for a solid year! That’s no surprise, at least to me.

More than 1,800 Iraqi civilians were killed last August. (That’s half the number of civilians we lost on 9/11.) At what point will Americans begin to recognize these deaths? 
They already recognize these deaths, and that recognition is embodied in the public opinion polls on the war, which is overwhelmingly opposed by the American people. Our soldiers are dying in Iraq, and the public sees no good reason for it. Indeed, that’s the main reason for the unpopularity of this war: Americans, you see, are dying. About the Iraqi civilian deaths, which are on the increase, they could care less.

Counterpunch/Nation columnist Alexander Cockburn says that Sen. Craig is a victim of police entrapment. What do you make of this?
He most certainly was a victim of police entrapment. These “vice squads” regularly stake out men’s rooms, and are well-versed in the toe-tapping arcana of gay “cruising” signals. So, in spite of the fact that no sexual contact between Craig and the arresting officer occurred, the good Senator finds himself ruined, politically and personally. I don’t want to suggest a conspiracy in this case, but Craig did vote against the Bush administration on several key “anti-terrorism” votes. Hmmm, kind of makes you think.

Cockburn also suggests that the anti-war movement should embrace the Iraqi resistance. Is he serious?
I hope he isn’t serious. The Iraqi “resistance,” whatever that is, consists of several variegated groups: Islamists, Ba’athists, Sunni fundamentalists, Shi’ite splinters, and a large number of semi-criminal gangs. None of them are “democratic” or “liberal” in the Western sense, and none deserve our “support” — which would, by the way, consist of what? It is enough for Americans to oppose the war: we don’t have to pick sides, or hook up with some Iraqi “resistance” group over which we have no control. The pro-war forces are continually accusing us of being “traitors” and saying that we support “the insurgents,” whoever they may be. If we did start supporting insurgent groups, the charge of “treason” would not be that far-fetched — and, aside from the legal implications, there is nothing to be gained politically or strategically.

In a recent column, you spoke of “bizarro Libertarianism.” This weird strain was on display at the recent FreedomFest in Las Vegas in July, and a lot of people seemed to respond well to it. 
I could go on about this forever, but I’ll spare your readers a very long rant. Suffice to say that these people, i.e. pro-war “Libertarians,” are not Libertarians at all, but merely the pet Libertarian fringe of the neoconservative right. To oppose the central tenet of Libertarianism — to advocate the massive initiation of force against a country that never attacked us, and represented no threat to us — is to cede the designation Libertarian. And if we look at the ancillary consequences of this decision to go to war — the concerted attack on our civil liberties, the billions in tax dollars wasted on this horrific enterprise, the atmosphere of fear and intimidation engendered by the atmosphere of fear and intimidation engendered by the War Party in the run-up to the invasion — it is clear that anyone (any alleged “Libertarian”) who supports this war is, indeed, a traitor … to Libertarianism.

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul seems to have conducted his campaign perfectly, whereas the other Republican candidates appear to want to extend Bush’s policies. How far off was John Edwards in characterizing the mainstream Republican presidential candidates as “Bush on steroids”? 
Not very far off at all. Giuliani, in particular, is a dangerous man, with the psychology of a thug and the politics of what Lew Rockwell has trenchantly termed “red-state fascism.” McCain is another authoritarian type: his volcanic personality, compared with his extreme foreign-policy views — remember, he campaigned for “regime change” in Iraq, Iran and many others places (including in the former Soviet Union!) when George W. Bush was invoking “a more humble” foreign policy. Romney is an empty vessel, waiting to be filled — and the neocons will be glad to oblige. Fred Thompson, whose last known political campaign was trying to get Scooter Libby off the hook, is the neocons’ man, and he’ll follow orders readily (if lazily) enough.

The Democratic candidates — with the exceptions of Gravel and Kucinich — seem hopeless in terms of ending the war and eliminating taxes. Given the war and all the government abuse and corruption going on right now, how can they seriously talk about installing a national healthcare system? 
I don’t think the Democrats have ever pledged to “eliminate taxes,” or even reduce them. Richardson, however, is good on the war: He’s for withdrawal fairly quickly. But, yes, you’re unfortunately right about the Democratic field: They all pay lip service to anti-war sentiment, without actually coming out and saying, “Out now!”

There’s a new book on the horizon that looks to be highly — if not devastatingly — critical of the Israeli lobby. How successful will the lobby be in dismantling this attack like the one made by a certain DePaul professor? 
I’m reading The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt — which is the book, I believe, that you’re referring to — but haven’t finished it yet. It is a painstakingly researched, comprehensive critique of the “special relationship” that has brought us so much grief, and the authors make a good case for reforming American foreign policy so that it is no longer distorted by Israeli centrism, i.e. an excessive concern for the security and political interests of the Israeli state, even when those interests conflict with American interests in the Middle East and elsewhere. I don’t see how the lobby will be able to smear these two authors as the equivalent of David Duke and the American Nazi Party — but that doesn’t mean they won’t try. I don’t think, however, that they’ll succeed.

Now that we know the CIA is polishing Wikipedia entries, should we even bother using the thing?
Well, we know the CIA or some other government agency has infiltrated the anti-war movement, so does that mean we shouldn’t be in the anti-war movement? Of course not. Wikipedia is great because it is self-editing. It works, for the most part, because distortions and other “point of view” editing gets noticed, gets questioned, and ultimately gets corrected. Go check out the history of my own Wikipedia entry, and you’ll see what I mean.

Antiwar.com — along with Counterpunch, LewRockwell.com and Infowars — are among the best Libertarian sources of news and opinion on the Internet. Have you ever been in the same room with Cockburn, Rockwell and Jones?
I wouldn’t call Counterpunch a Libertarian website: Cockburn is a leftist, albeit an unconventional one. As for Alex Jones, he is crazy; there’s no two ways about it, and I would never appear on his radio program. He holds that Al Qaeda is a CIA front, that Osama bin Laden doesn’t exist, and that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11 were directed by Mysterious Forces In Our Own Government — yeah, right! Whatever he’s smoking, I don’t even want to take a single hit of it! I love LewRockwell.com, of course: It’s the leading “movement” Libertarian web site. And, yes, I’ve been in the same room with both Lew and Alex Cockburn: at the first Antiwar.com national conference, held some years ago, which both attended and spoke at. I’ve known Lew for many years, and I’ve known Cockburn for about five years. Both are great guys: I’ve never met Alex Jones, and if I can avoid meeting him I certainly will continue our non-acquaintance.

What’s the best part about running Antiwar.com?
I don’t ever have to go into an office! I really do enjoy my job, even though it’s a lot of work. Writing three columns a week is not exactly a breeze, even for someone who writes as much as I like to. I also enjoy the letters I get from people, not just the fan mail but the longer letters explaining some aspect of an issue I didn’t know about. My readers sure are smart! And I’m lucky to have them in such numbers. Every day of my life I give thanks for the Internet. Without it, I’d still be writing for obscure magazines that most newsstands don’t carry, and eking out a living of some sort whilst writing books in my spare time that hardly anyone would bother reading. So, to the gods of the Internet: many thanks!