Well, maybe the Libertarians who aren't thrilled with Bob Barr have some reason to be more favorable.  Self-proclaimed Libertarian radio host Neal Boortz isn't exactly bursting his buttons praising Bob.  And for those who find Boortz a displeasing ambassador for the party, that should be a pleasant note.

We'd *expect* Boortz to be talking about the Bob Barr presidential announcement, and he is.  Here's a minor snip from what he said on his web site today:

If Bob Barr as the Libertarian nominee pledges to fight Islamic fascism ... then I see no reason why he wouldn't have my vote. Well ... maybe one reason. He has to stop calling our forces in Iraq an "occupying army."
(See the full artcile here:  http://boortz.com/nuze/200805/05132008.html#barr)

But that's a little bit different in tone (if not in substance) from what he said on the air.  On air, he was pretty definite - we're "liberators', not "occupiers", and Bob's stance on the war is a complete non-starter.

Now pretty much everyone who knows me and my past writings knows that I'm a more-than-average-hawk as a Libertarian.  I *did* support the war.  I *did* support staying in Iraq longer than just a few months.  But even *I* have finally twigged to the fact that we ARE occupying that country.  I don't think it's with evil intent, as "conquerors". But occupation is occupation.  Even what we did "in the Great Wiorld War Two" was occupy.  That's what a victorious force does.

And the occupation has gone on long enough.  Some of us have just been slow figuring that out.